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

Re: Proposal ocaml guidelines



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.


This is taken from then PLD guidelines, I'm open to changing this. They advice to put the mli files (gzipped) in %doc when necessary, but to not ship them when there are other docs.

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:

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


Yes, I think that adding version info to the ocaml lib path would be a good idea, however the already existing packages don't do this, hence I didn't put it in my proposal. This would be something todo at the beginning of the F8 cycle, if we agree that we want to change this.

Regards,

Hans




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