[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Proposal ocaml guidelines



Sorry to come into the discussion a bit later than expected.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> The proposal I mailed to the list yesterday is now available here:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
> 
> What's the thinking behind removing *.mli by default?  Even in packages
> which are well documented, the *.mli files are the definitive reference
> for programmers.  I think they should always be in the -devel subpackage.
I replaced it in ocaml-SDL and ocaml-camlimages with ocamldoc generated
html references, which seems to be pretty much the same as the
individual mli files.
> 
> Debian even include *.ml files in certain situations:
> 
> $ dpkg -S /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3/list.ml
> ocaml-nox: /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3/list.ml
It seems to be a case of when they are provided in make install, include
them.
> 
> Along the same lines I notice that there is no version information in
> the path.  Early on Debian used the major.minor format (eg.
> /usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/) but they found out the hard way that the *.cmo &
> *.cmx format can change incompatibly on every release (even bugfixes) so
> they now put the full version number in the path.  See:
Good point, this needs to be looked at by the ocaml maintainer (CC'd)
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2005/01/msg00067.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2005/01/msg00050.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2005/01/msg00056.html
> 
> Rich.
> 

N.J.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]