On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:35:07PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:16:52PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:19:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > > Perhaps, we have to look if this is a useful program or not. I'm > > > > defintely against the approach "package this chat program only because > > > > it is written in ocaml", but if it is better than other talk approach > > > > ... why not? > > > > > > Dimitri wants it, so we'll ship it. > > > > Ok, I hope in a future larger user base, but this is a good start ... ;) > > > > > > OCamlmake-o-matic ok, but from the description of OCamlCVS seems that > > > > there is also a library, have you checked it? > > > > > > Yes, I was wrong indeed, but I'm not in favour of slipping > > > OCamlCVS. > > > > Uhm, we probably should have one "ocamlcvs" package, and one > > libcvs-ocaml-... package depending on each other as needed. But probably > > isn't a good idea to have cameleon depending on ocamlcvs (note this is > > based on the assumption that other tools doesn't need, or even use, > > ocamlcvs ... If this assumption is wrong cameleon should safely depend > > on ocamlcvs). > > It is also ok to have only one ocamlcvs package, but it should provide > libcvs-ocaml and libcvs-ocaml-dev virtual packages. > > But then, dpkg is yet broken with respect to virtual packages and > versioned dependencies.
I personaly think that spliting cameleon in one package per component it provides is enough (14 packages): making subcomponents (i.e. libraries in their own package) is overbloating. -- Jérôme Marant
