[aur-general] Ocaml Packages
Thomas S Hatch
thatch45 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 4 17:10:44 EST 2011
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > As for your explanation of the naming I completely agree, although I
> > sway towards naming a package only by it's name and not by ocaml-foo if
> > package provides an application that just happens to include libs. Thats
> > like saying that every python package should be named python-foo, unless
> > package consists of just a script.
> I see your point and partially agree. I would say that it depends on
> the libraries or the application are the principle component of the
> 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
> includes a full application. It really could be named either way but I
> it's useful to indicate the presence of modules intended for general use
> the prefix.
> Of course, if an application required its own libraries or modules to run
> 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
> application separately. (I'm just thinking out loud here.)
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 :) )
More information about the aur-general