On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 12:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > 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. > > > > This is taken from then PLD guidelines, I'm open to changing this. They advice > to put the mli files (gzipped) in %doc when necessary, but to not ship them > when there are other docs. > > > 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: > > > > 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 > > > > Yes, I think that adding version info to the ocaml lib path would be a good > idea, however the already existing packages don't do this, hence I didn't put > it in my proposal. This would be something todo at the beginning of the F8 > cycle, if we agree that we want to change this. Maybe we should open a bug report against ocaml, so we can take the discussion off this list. Some changes have to be done to that package anyways. -- Gérard Milmeister Langackerstrasse 49 CH-8057 Zürich -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
