On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:59:59PM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:21:49PM -0400, Mike Furr wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 14:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > liblabltk-ocaml labltk stublibs > > > liblabltk-ocaml-dev liblabltk-ocaml labltk header > > I wouldn't mind those, except it might not be clear if this was a > > different Tk lib than that distributed with ocaml. > > > > > libbase-extra-ocaml extra stublibs > > > libbase-extra-ocaml-dev libbase-extra-ocaml extra header > > I think this name makes no sense. having 'base' and 'extra' together > > is confusing. > > > > > libgraphics-ocaml graphics stublibs > > > libgraphics-ocaml-dev graphics header > > Since these would contain only ~5 files each, this seems a little excessive. > > The graphics stuff should be combined with the labltk. > > > > Well, I'm just about done with the patch using the names as before. It > > isn't too much of a pain to change the them, but it will be annoying. I > > don't see the need to change. > > -- > > Hello, > > Well, what about : > libcompilers-extra-ocaml in place of libbase-extra-ocaml.
Huh, what exactly you will have in it ? I don't really see the need of this one, so suspisions are that it is an uneeded split. > For the split graphics/labltk, we could include graphics in > liblabltk-ocaml, but we need to state this in short/long description... Better find another name if we are going to do this. I would oppose the libgraphics living in the liblabltk package, altough a separate one for each of them would be ok. I prefer the ocaml and ocaml-nox separation, without need to go too much into little package. Furthermore, i believe upstream would like less splitting more than too much. BTW, Mike, why you don't just open an account on alioth, and create a branch for your stuff in the subversion repo ? Friendly, Sven Luther
