[ Context: I'm packaging core http://janestcapital.com/ocaml/: ITP has
been sent but hasn't arrived yet. We are missing some of its
dependencies in Debian which are Camlp4 extensions, e.g.: sexplib, hence
we will need to package them as well ]
Our policy has a paragraph about camlp4 which I would like to change,
quoting from http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_policy.html/x444.html:
> You just have to consider a CamlP4 file just as a standard library,
> except that you prefix them with -syntax. For example: the syntax
> extension coming with libokey-ocaml-dev should be stored in
> /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.1/okey-syntax/, the package containing it should
> be called libokey-syntax-ocaml-dev.
I object the naming convention libFOO-syntax-ocaml-dev. My alternative
proposal is libFOO-camlp4. There are a couple of rationales for that:
- the current naming convention has no reference to camlp4. I'm
convinced this is bad as I believe our users will be looking for
"camlp4" somewhere in the package name. (this is the reason for doing
s/syntax/camlp4/ basically)
- the current naming convention has "-dev" while camlp4 is not strictly
a development library. It is in fact used in development, but is
rather stuff which is dynamically loaded by camlp4. Also camlp4 can be
used for just program translation and no development at all. (this is
the reason for getting rid of the trailing -dev basically)
Objections to the change of naming convention?
Cheers.
PS as a direct consequence of this change, if accepted, sexplib in
Debian will be called libsexplib-camlp4
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/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