On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:27:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:44:19PM +0100, Sven wrote: > > o i will finally grant ralf's wish and separate the runtime stuff into a > > separate package named ocaml-base (after perl-base and other such). > > maybe ocaml-runtime is a better name? > We have the meta-package ocaml-core and the two names will be IMO very > similar.
I think various other packages follow the perl example and provide a -base name, This is a well established naming convention to use, but i may be willing to reconsider it. Anyway, i was thinking about the ocaml package providing and replacing the ocaml-base package. > > If anyone has any remarks or past experience with 3.03, please speak now (or > > remain silent ...) > > Please move the documentation to /usr/share/doc/ocaml/ instead of > /usr/share/doc/ocaml-doc/. mmm, will consider it. > I don't know if there is a policy statement but usually the *-doc > packages install the docs in the /share/doc/ dir of the main package. mmm, i don't think there is any clear evidence for either cases. ocaml-doc could be a symlink to ocaml/doc ? > Moreover accessing the documentation from the main package directories > is more intuitive because a user may not know if there exists a *-doc > package. Yes, ... > Apart from this, as soon you have also a preliminary version of the > .deb, mail us the url where we can find it so that we can rebuild the > ocaml libraries packages ASAP. Yes, will do, altough i guess it will not be before this week end or early next week. There may also be compatibility problems ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
