[aur-general] Ocaml Packages

Thomas S Hatch thatch45 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 11:34:53 EST 2011

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:

> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > 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
> I wasn't actually suggesting that we split the packages (whence the
> inclusion
> of "Perhaps the ideal..."). I was just considering whether there would be
> any
> advantages to that approach. The advent of split packages gives it a
> certain
> allure, and the arguments for and against it are both based on KISS
> principles.
> We could also go the simple route and say that all packages that provide
> libraries|modules for general use should include the prefix in the name,
> and if
> they provide an application as well then they should "provide" the
> application
> name in the PKGBUILD, i.e. the pkgname without the prefix in most if not
> all
> cases.
> Vice versa would work too, but the prefixed name subsumes the unprefixed
> name
> and would thus result in a hit when searching for either, which I prefer.
> Regards,
> Xyne

Heh, if anything I was speaking hypothetically, and yes the advent of split
packages does open up a barrage of packaging considerations. With all that
said, I think that you are spot on with your description, I will add it to
the wiki page later today.


More information about the aur-general mailing list