[aur-general] Duplication: ocamlgraph
Hi all, do we really need three packages of the OCaml library ocamlgraph [1]? The packages are all up-to-date, but maintained by three different users. The correctest one according to the specified dependencies IMHO is ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib [2], which also has the minimal code for building the package. What do you think? Regards, Simon (simon04) [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=ocamlgraph&do_Search=Go [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31755
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:16, Simon Legner <simon.legner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, do we really need three packages of the OCaml library ocamlgraph [1]? The packages are all up-to-date, but maintained by three different users. The correctest one according to the specified dependencies IMHO is ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib [2], which also has the minimal code for building the package. What do you think?
As the maintainer of one of them (the one that does depend on findlib) I would love to see mine being removed. I'm fine with using ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib iff it still installs all the stuff necessary for it to work with findlib (META files and stuff). /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
On Mon 20 Sep 2010 11:16 +0200, Simon Legner wrote:
do we really need three packages of the OCaml library ocamlgraph [1]? The packages are all up-to-date, but maintained by three different users. The correctest one according to the specified dependencies IMHO is ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib [2], which also has the minimal code for building the package. What do you think?
I would think the the most correct one should be renamed to ocaml-ocamlgraph, and the rest deleted. You guys can sort that out and report back. Cheers.
On 26/09/10 01:53, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon 20 Sep 2010 11:16 +0200, Simon Legner wrote:
do we really need three packages of the OCaml library ocamlgraph [1]? The packages are all up-to-date, but maintained by three different users. The correctest one according to the specified dependencies IMHO is ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib [2], which also has the minimal code for building the package. What do you think?
I would think the the most correct one should be renamed to ocaml-ocamlgraph, and the rest deleted. You guys can sort that out and report back. Cheers.
ocamlgraph[1] has been orphaned, so I suggest first of all to remove it. Then we'll work out which of the other two to keep. /M [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21687 -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
On 20/09/10 10:16, Simon Legner wrote:
Hi all, do we really need three packages of the OCaml library ocamlgraph [1]? The packages are all up-to-date, but maintained by three different users. The correctest one according to the specified dependencies IMHO is ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib [2], which also has the minimal code for building the package. What do you think?
I'm curious as to why the dependency on findlib is undesirable. I've added a dependency on lablgtk2 to ocaml-ocamlgraph, so now they match each other in dependencies. Personally I think a dependency on findlib is desirable so I think ocaml-ocamlgraph is the correctest one, but I'm open to any counter arguments. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:38:46 +0200, Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
I'm curious as to why the dependency on findlib is undesirable. I didn't mean that. It's just that ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib has the simplest build()-code. According to the KISS principle I'd favour that one, if and only if it provides the same functionality (e.g. the META files you mentioned).
I've added a dependency on lablgtk2 to ocaml-ocamlgraph, so now they match each other in dependencies. Personally I think a dependency on findlib is desirable so I think ocaml-ocamlgraph is the correctest one, but I'm open to any counter arguments. I just wanted to find out the differences of files after building the three packages. But unfortunately none of them builds on my machine (x86_64) due to the following error: File "dgraph/dGraphViewer.ml", line 26, characters 0-11: Error: Unbound module Dgraph
ocamlgraph[1] has been orphaned, so I suggest first of all to remove it. Then we'll work out which of the other two to keep. I think, it has been orphaned when I started this discussion, but I'm not sure about that.
Regards, Simon Legner
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 23:12, Simon Legner <simon.legner@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:38:46 +0200, Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
I'm curious as to why the dependency on findlib is undesirable.
I didn't mean that. It's just that ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib has the simplest build()-code. According to the KISS principle I'd favour that one, if and only if it provides the same functionality (e.g. the META files you mentioned).
Ah, I was unclear in my wording, this question was actually directed to the packager of ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib, more than to you. Nevertheless it's good to know that you aren't opposed to using findlib. Yes, the PKGBUILD in ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib is slightly simpler, but I don't think the one in ocaml-ocamlgraph is complex in any way. There are good reasons for the extra stuff in my PKGBUILD: - the patch is required in order to get findlib to install stuff in the correct place - it seems to be standard now to use both build() and package() for packages where build and install are separate steps - the longer lines for installing is again due to findlib I did compile it yesterday, and noticed that the META files are *not* built in ocamlgraph-withoutfindlib, so on that alone I would argue ocaml-ocamlgraph is the way to go.
I've added a dependency on lablgtk2 to ocaml-ocamlgraph, so now they match each other in dependencies. Personally I think a dependency on findlib is desirable so I think ocaml-ocamlgraph is the correctest one, but I'm open to any counter arguments.
I just wanted to find out the differences of files after building the three packages. But unfortunately none of them builds on my machine (x86_64) due to the following error: File "dgraph/dGraphViewer.ml", line 26, characters 0-11: Error: Unbound module Dgraph
Interesting and surprising, I just built both versions (with and without findlib) yesterday, both successfully. I'm building in a chroot, on x86_64, so I'm very perplexed by your difficulties. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
participants (3)
-
Loui Chang
-
Magnus Therning
-
Simon Legner