On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Thomas S Hatch wrote:
As for your explanation of the naming I completely agree, although I would sway towards naming a package only by it's name and not by ocaml-foo if the package provides an application that just happens to include libs. Thats like saying that every python package should be named python-foo, unless the package consists of just a script.
I see your point and partially agree. I would say that it depends on whether the libraries or the application are the principle component of the package.
I was thinking of Haskell packages when I wrote that, and haskell-pandoc in particular. It includes modules that can be used in Haskell code but it also includes a full application. It really could be named either way but I think it's useful to indicate the presence of modules intended for general use with the prefix.
Of course, if an application required its own libraries or modules to run and those were not intended to be used by anything else then I would agree that there should be no prefix.
Perhaps the ideal would be to split some packages to provide the libraries and application separately. (I'm just thinking out loud here.)
Regards, Xyne
Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and it starts to scrape the question of a lot of package splitting with -devel packages. I think it would be safe in saying that that in general Arch does not do -devel packages, and it would be silly to start devel packages our here on the ocaml front! But this sounds good, I think I that finding some solid ground on this little grey area will be the last part to the standard, I think I will ask Richard Jones what he thinks (although he will give me some crap about arch not splitting devel packages :) ) -Tom