Hello, On 03-05-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > [ Context: I'm packaging core http://janestcapital.com/ocaml/: ITP has > been sent but hasn't arrived yet. We are missing some of its > dependencies in Debian which are Camlp4 extensions, e.g.: sexplib, hence > we will need to package them as well ] >
I will package sexplib and type-conv, since i use it in some of my projects. But, you will need to give me time to read the git related new stuff for pkg-ocaml-maint. > Our policy has a paragraph about camlp4 which I would like to change, > quoting from http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_polic= > y.html/x444.html: > >> You just have to consider a CamlP4 file just as a standard library, >> except that you prefix them with -syntax. For example: the syntax >> extension coming with libokey-ocaml-dev should be stored in >> /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.1/okey-syntax/, the package containing it should >> be called libokey-syntax-ocaml-dev. > > I object the naming convention libFOO-syntax-ocaml-dev. My alternative > proposal is libFOO-camlp4. There are a couple of rationales for that: > > - the current naming convention has no reference to camlp4. I'm > convinced this is bad as I believe our users will be looking for > "camlp4" somewhere in the package name. (this is the reason for doing > s/syntax/camlp4/ basically) > > - the current naming convention has "-dev" while camlp4 is not strictly > a development library. It is in fact used in development, but is > rather stuff which is dynamically loaded by camlp4. Also camlp4 can be > used for just program translation and no development at all. (this is > the reason for getting rid of the trailing -dev basically) > > Objections to the change of naming convention? > Regarding latest OSR comments, i think we just should distribute -dev package, because most of the time a camlp4 extension comes with a runtime library (talking about sexplib for example). So to my mind, it should be better to have every package in -dev and have a "syntaxt" subpackage in the META file. http://cocan.org/osr/meta_files_for_packages_containing_syntax_extensions My rationale for distributing libFOO-syntax-ocaml-dev by libFOO-ocaml-dev: - camlp4 requirement should be coded in the META file (ie require="camlp4") - most of the time a camlp4 extensions comes with a library and should be part of the -dev packge of this library As a side effect, doing thing at the META file level will help us to share our patches with upstream/other distro... Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
