[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "weird" naming convention for ocamlbuild executables



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


Reply to: