On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:58:19PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I think so. I was going to suggest continuing to have ocaml-nox > > contain camlp4, for compatibility, but have a smaller ocaml-core > > without camlp4 that it depends on. But now I see that this name is > > (unfortunately, IMO) already used for a package that includes a lot of > > misc. tools. Is it too late to change that? In other cases > > I've lost you, which names are you considering here? My proposal is to > keep "ocaml-nox" (though I've never liked it since it's not clear that > "nox" means "no SPACE x", but these are details...) and to add an > additional new package with extra camlp4 stuff (both binaries and > libraries). An honest proposal would be "ocaml-camlp4-extra".
Your approach is certainly the least disruptive. I was suggesting (wishing?) that we could use the name "ocaml-core" for a true OCaml "core", without camlp4, but I don't think it's feasible now. -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
