On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 02:49:55PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > Sure, but there is really no other scheme. Notice that some of the > > package don't really need a library version embedded, so we can just > > have, for example, libzip-ocaml-3.07, which will not be all that ugly > > after all. > My packages will only support the latest version, so I won't use > that anyway.
Ok, nobody could force you to do work you wont like to do. But, assuming that we will choose this not-yet-approved solution, is a problem for you to name your binary packages including also the -<ocaml_version> part? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/ " I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney
pgpDud8o4bojy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
