On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 01:44:41PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> That's becoming a bit too much of a hassle for just bindings packages,
> I'm actually thinking of dropping the OCaml part. A binary per language
> is OK, having -dev for bindings packages too is becoming just too much.
> The initial proposition [1] of putting -dev things in libgraphvizN-dev
> sounded acceptable to me, though (Julien seconded it on IRC).
>
> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2007/09/msg00170.html
Re-reading that thread it seems to me you acknowledged at that time that
putting everything in libgraphvizN-dev would add a dependency on ocaml
which should then be fulfilled by everyone installing libgraphvizN-dev.
This seems an issue to me.
If you agree on that we can make a deal :) of creating just one
libgraphviz-ocaml-dev package with both the -dev and runtime stuff for
ocaml and maybe have it provide libgraphviz-ocaml so that at least at a
virtual package level we are consistent with the other ocaml packages.
What do you think of it?
> > In addition to that, you will also need to install ocaml stuff under
> > /usr/lib/ocaml/VERSION/graphviz/ rather then under
> > /usr/lib/graphviz/ocaml/ which is what I still see in the git version
> > of the package.
> In the previous mail, I detailed the content of the package, available
> online at [2]. It looks like I also pointed to the debian/rules diff in
> that mail, which shows the (a priori) correct use of $(OCAMLABI).
Yep, right, I overlooked it, sorry for that.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature