Re: "weird" naming convention for ocamlbuild executables

[Mike Furr <mfurr@debian.org>]

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.
>
> 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...

I think we can do such a change.  If we just provide foo instead of foo 
and foo.opt, then nothing should break.  Just about everything that I've 
seen check for foo.opt gracefully falls back to use foo when its not 
available, so there shouldn't be any problems.

Convincing them of a change would probably easier once we already have 
evidence that the new way works well :)

Cheers
-Mike