On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:20:37PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:54:08PM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > If we change away from the foo / foo.opt naming scheme, I'd prefer to
> > make a "clean break" and adopt the .bytecode/.native approach. I
> > always thought the presence of both ocamlopt and ocamlc.opt was quite
> > confusing (and leads to abominations like ocamlopt.opt). I'd rather
> > see ocamlc{,.native,.bytecode} and ocamlopt{,.native,.bytecode}, etc.
> >
> > I suppose *.opt symlinks could be kept for a while for compatibility,
> > but I'd rather see them go away.
I think whether it's *.opt or *.native is pretty much a bikeshed[1] to
me. So let me just say that it's at least consistent if ocamlopt
produces *.opt files. Hence for a really "clean break" we should change
it to ocamlnative and ocamlnative.native. ;-)
> Fully agreed, but we can't do such a change "just" in Debian. We need to
> convince upstream about that and I don't think it would be easy...
Understood. However the same reasoning then applies to naming
ocamlbuild executables.
[1]:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING
--
Chris Stork <> Support eff.org! <> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cstork/
OpenPGP fingerprint: B08B 602C C806 C492 D069 021E 41F3 8C8D 50F9 CA2F
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature