On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 10:49:24AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> > 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.
OK then. To create the new needed git repos and checkout them out to
start working you can use the scripts I've prepared: they are in
projects/git-guide/ on the svn repo.
With them do:
./new-d-o-m-git-repo SRCPKGNAME TARBALL
for each tarball you have (which should be type-conv and bin-prot
AFAICT). Then do:
./checkout-d-o-m-git-repo type-conv
./checkout-d-o-m-git-repo bin-prot
You will then have the two locally cloned git repositories and can start
working on them.
> 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.
I'm fine with this too; will change the policy to reflect this proposal
(unless there are other objections of course).
A last remark though: there are some cases where the library is mostly
an extension (with some extra libraries bit) and vice-versa. In that
case, where probably splitting 2 libFOO-{ocaml,camlp4}-dev is not
worthy, I would be fine with having only one binary package (maybe
Provide-ing the other?) named accordingly to the main use of the
package.
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