On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:06:00PM +0200, Maxence Guesdon wrote: > Hello again, > > > - what naming policy should I use for ocaml program that have > > a quite generic name (for example "report"). Should I use > > a ocaml- prefix? How do we consider a program name is > > too generic? > > My two cents : every tool which is for a "development with OCaml" usage only > should be called ocaml-XXX (ocaml-report, ocaml-zoggy, ...), while > applications which in the end does not depend on OCaml should be called by > their name only, like 'mldonkey'. Maybe i did not choose right names at the > beginning...
We should then decide on something about the OCaml policy. > > Now, I have a request to Maxence: for any ocaml program in > > Cameleon, you should build either the bytecode version or > > the native one; I don't think building both is usefull. > > Currently, in the debian package, I'm providing only the > > native version when available and the bytecode one when not > > (with the same name). > > Hum, yes, but not for all. For example, cameleon native and bytecode versions > differ because the bytecode version allows the plug-in loading, but native > version is faster. For tools where native and byte code versions do the same, > I agree that I should only compile byt OR native. I'll do this in the future. > But keeping bytecode AND native is good, isn't it ? If there aren't any good reason for keeping both, users won't understand. Are cameleon binaries the only ones to behave differently in Cameleon? (BTW, what binaries from the cameleon directory behave a different way?) Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
