On Fri, 04 May 2007 13:24:18 +0200 GĂ©rard Milmeister gemi@bluewin.ch wrote:
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:
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.
Thats sounds like a good plan, when you do, please send a link as reply in this thread, so that interested people can add themselves to the CC,
Regards,
Hans