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