On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 10:04:01AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> I will package sexplib and type-conv, since i use it in some of my
> projects.
Well, not having found an ITP on sexplib I've filed one a few minutes
ago. But help on packaging type-conv would be very welcome.
> But, you will need to give me time to read the git related new
> stuff for pkg-ocaml-maint.
For what concerns the ITP I've filed they contains the URL of the git
repo. The mini howto iw: "git checkout URL", work-work-work, "git add
STUFF", "git commit", "git push" (to send your stuff to alioth), "git
pull" (to receive stuff committed by other from alioth).
But we can transition gradually, so if you want to package type-conv in
svn it's no problem. I'm working with git also to discover if there are
flaws in the transition plan from svn 2 git I have outlined.
> Regarding latest OSR comments, i think we just should distribute -dev
> package, because most of the time a camlp4 extension comes with a
>
> 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
> runtime library (talking about sexplib for example).
Well, the OSR comments you mention are about the naming conventions for
META files, right? Even though we have a general policy of having some
kind of mapping between META and package names it is not strict at the
moment and for sure it does not take into consideration sub-packages.
So this would lead us to libFOO-ocaml-dev per se (without syntax) which
would contain some Camlp4 extension and some "ordinary" OCaml library
(as indeed happens with Sexplib, thanks for pointing this out).
[ Note that I'm not talking at all about METAs, for that it is fine with
me what the OSR proposes, I'm talking about Debian package naming. ]
Then the question is what is better between libFOO-ocaml-dev and
libFOO-camlp4-dev? My opinion is that "it depends". If the package is
mainly to be used as a library and also has some camlp4 sugar, then
libFOO-ocaml-dev is probably the best. If on the other hand the package
is mainly to be used as a syntax extension and the shipped library is
auxiliary to that, then libFOO-camlp4-dev is probably the best. Of
course you can split the package in 2 packages and then have both
libFOO-{ocaml,camlp4}-dev.
> 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...
Fine, but I'm not talking about messing up with METAs ...
Cheers.
--
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