On 03-05-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --wac7ysb48OaltWcw > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 10:04:01AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: >> I will package sexplib and type-conv, since i use it in some of my >> projects. > > Well, not having found an ITP on sexplib I've filed one a few minutes > ago. But help on packaging type-conv would be very welcome. >
We do it at the same time ;-) >> But, you will need to give me time to read the git related new >> stuff for pkg-ocaml-maint. > > For what concerns the ITP I've filed they contains the URL of the git > repo. The mini howto iw: "git checkout URL", work-work-work, "git add > STUFF", "git commit", "git push" (to send your stuff to alioth), "git > pull" (to receive stuff committed by other from alioth). > > But we can transition gradually, so if you want to package type-conv in > svn it's no problem. I'm working with git also to discover if there are > flaws in the transition plan from svn 2 git I have outlined. > No it is time to go with git. >> Regarding latest OSR comments, i think we just should distribute -dev >> package, because most of the time a camlp4 extension comes with a >>=20 >> 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 >> runtime library (talking about sexplib for example).=20 > > Well, the OSR comments you mention are about the naming conventions for > META files, right? Even though we have a general policy of having some > kind of mapping between META and package names it is not strict at the > moment and for sure it does not take into consideration sub-packages. > > So this would lead us to libFOO-ocaml-dev per se (without syntax) which > would contain some Camlp4 extension and some "ordinary" OCaml library > (as indeed happens with Sexplib, thanks for pointing this out). > > [ Note that I'm not talking at all about METAs, for that it is fine with > me what the OSR proposes, I'm talking about Debian package naming. ] > > Then the question is what is better between libFOO-ocaml-dev and > libFOO-camlp4-dev? My opinion is that "it depends". If the package is > mainly to be used as a library and also has some camlp4 sugar, then > libFOO-ocaml-dev is probably the best. If on the other hand the package > is mainly to be used as a syntax extension and the shipped library is > auxiliary to that, then libFOO-camlp4-dev is probably the best. Of > course you can split the package in 2 packages and then have both > libFOO-{ocaml,camlp4}-dev. > I am ok with this: - if the package only contains .cmo files for use with camlp4 -> libFOO-camlp4-dev - if the package only contains .cmo files for use with camlp5 -> libFOO-camlp5-dev - if the package contains library (.cma|.cmo|.cmxa...) -> libFOO-ocaml-dev This is a good policy for naming. > > Fine, but I'm not talking about messing up with METAs ... > Yeah, i know. Just want to outline this fact when talking about camlp4 package... Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
