[aur-general] Ocaml Packages

[Xyne]

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