On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > > As for your explanation of the naming I completely agree, although I > would > > sway towards naming a package only by it's name and not by ocaml-foo if > the > > package provides an application that just happens to include libs. Thats > > like saying that every python package should be named python-foo, unless > the > > package consists of just a script. > > I see your point and partially agree. I would say that it depends on > whether > the libraries or the application are the principle component of the > package. > > I was thinking of Haskell packages when I wrote that, and haskell-pandoc in > particular. It includes modules that can be used in Haskell code but it > also > includes a full application. It really could be named either way but I > think > it's useful to indicate the presence of modules intended for general use > with > the prefix. > > Of course, if an application required its own libraries or modules to run > and > those were not intended to be used by anything else then I would agree that > there should be no prefix. > > Perhaps the ideal would be to split some packages to provide the libraries > and > application separately. (I'm just thinking out loud here.) > > Regards, > Xyne > > > Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and it starts to scrape the question of a lot of package splitting with -devel packages. I think it would be safe in saying that that in general Arch does not do -devel packages, and it would be silly to start devel packages our here on the ocaml front!
But this sounds good, I think I that finding some solid ground on this little grey area will be the last part to the standard, I think I will ask Richard Jones what he thinks (although he will give me some crap about arch not splitting devel packages :) ) -Tom
