Sorry to come into the discussion a bit later than expected. Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: >> The proposal I mailed to the list yesterday is now available here: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml > > What's the thinking behind removing *.mli by default? Even in packages > which are well documented, the *.mli files are the definitive reference > for programmers. I think they should always be in the -devel subpackage. I replaced it in ocaml-SDL and ocaml-camlimages with ocamldoc generated html references, which seems to be pretty much the same as the individual mli files. > > Debian even include *.ml files in certain situations: > > $ dpkg -S /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3/list.ml > ocaml-nox: /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3/list.ml It seems to be a case of when they are provided in make install, include them. > > Along the same lines I notice that there is no version information in > the path. Early on Debian used the major.minor format (eg. > /usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/) but they found out the hard way that the *.cmo & > *.cmx format can change incompatibly on every release (even bugfixes) so > they now put the full version number in the path. See: Good point, this needs to be looked at by the ocaml maintainer (CC'd) > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2005/01/msg00067.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2005/01/msg00050.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2005/01/msg00056.html > > Rich. > N.J. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
