Re: naming convention for camlp4 libraries
On 03-05-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
>
> --wac7ysb48OaltWcw
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> 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.
>
We do it at the same time ;-)
>> 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.
>
No it is time to go with git.
>> Regarding latest OSR comments, i think we just should distribute -dev
>> package, because most of the time a camlp4 extension comes with a
>>=20
>> 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).=20
>
> 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.
>
I am ok with this:
- if the package only contains .cmo files for use with camlp4 ->
libFOO-camlp4-dev
- if the package only contains .cmo files for use with camlp5 ->
libFOO-camlp5-dev
- if the package contains library (.cma|.cmo|.cmxa...) ->
libFOO-ocaml-dev
This is a good policy for naming.
>
> Fine, but I'm not talking about messing up with METAs ...
>
Yeah, i know. Just want to outline this fact when talking about camlp4
package...
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: