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

Re: Proposal ocaml guidelines



On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 12:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 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.
Maybe we should open a bug report against ocaml, so we can take the
discussion off this list. Some changes have to be done to that package
anyways.
-- 
Gérard Milmeister
Langackerstrasse 49
CH-8057 Zürich


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