On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 06:46:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 02:42:38PM +0100, Georges Mariano wrote: > > Sorry, but I can't remember the reason why you _have to_ change > > the upstream name ? (i.e what's the problem with it ?) > > Because we need a consistent naming schema for ocaml libraries.
And was it not you Georges, that complained that all package don't have ocaml in them ? > The one proposed by Sven is ok for me and surely is ok also for him. Well, let's go for a mix of this scheme and not yet split libraries for woody, for woody+1, we can think on it more cooly, and maybe a better solution will come about. We should interview the upstream authors about this also, maybe they have something to say about it. > If you really wants to, we can vote and take a global (i.e. the one that > we will put in the ocaml debian policy) decision. Yes, ... > IIRC, you only dislike this naming schema. > > Note that we are not discussing about the camlimage new package name, we > are discussing about the schema (i.e. lib*-ocaml). > > Next, remaining in the schema, if you think that libimages-ocaml is a > better name I can also choose it, but in such a case the upstream name > is even more hidden. I am not thinkin this right, the camlimages name will disapear and nobody will find its stuf fback. Also i am not sure upstream agrees with that. BTW, contrary to camlzip, which install in CAMLDIR/zip, camlimages actually installs in CAMLDIR/camlimages. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
