On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:24:58PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote: > > > Sounds fine to me. > > I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They > > are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer <foo>-camlp4 > > because of this. > > Well, yes, they are library. The difference is that camlp4 libraries are > required by campl4 itself as a source parser and not by the user > programs. The point is what we would like to emphasize in package name. > > Still from the user point of view you're probably right and <foo>-camlp4 > is probably a better solution than mine. > > Other thoughts?
Well, there is always the camlp4-<foo> possibility too, which has the benefit of showing all together in dpkg -l output and such. Friendly, Sven Luther
