Re: naming convention for camlp4 libraries
Hello,
On 03-05-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
>
> --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> [ 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 ]
>
I will package sexplib and type-conv, since i use it in some of my
projects. But, you will need to give me time to read the git related new
stuff for pkg-ocaml-maint.
> Our policy has a paragraph about camlp4 which I would like to change,
> quoting from http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_polic=
> y.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?
>
Regarding latest OSR comments, i think we just should distribute -dev
package, because most of the time a camlp4 extension comes with a
runtime library (talking about sexplib for example).
So to my mind, it should be better to have every package in -dev and
have a "syntaxt" subpackage in the META file.
http://cocan.org/osr/meta_files_for_packages_containing_syntax_extensions
My rationale for distributing libFOO-syntax-ocaml-dev by
libFOO-ocaml-dev:
- camlp4 requirement should be coded in the META file (ie
require="camlp4")
- most of the time a camlp4 extensions comes with a library and
should be part of the -dev packge of this library
As a side effect, doing thing at the META file level will help us to
share our patches with upstream/other distro...
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: