On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:16:52PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:19:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > Perhaps, we have to look if this is a useful program or not. I'm > > > defintely against the approach "package this chat program only because > > > it is written in ocaml", but if it is better than other talk approach > > > ... why not? > > > > Dimitri wants it, so we'll ship it. > > Ok, I hope in a future larger user base, but this is a good start ... ;) > > > > OCamlmake-o-matic ok, but from the description of OCamlCVS seems that > > > there is also a library, have you checked it? > > > > Yes, I was wrong indeed, but I'm not in favour of slipping > > OCamlCVS. > > Uhm, we probably should have one "ocamlcvs" package, and one > libcvs-ocaml-... package depending on each other as needed. But probably > isn't a good idea to have cameleon depending on ocamlcvs (note this is > based on the assumption that other tools doesn't need, or even use, > ocamlcvs ... If this assumption is wrong cameleon should safely depend > on ocamlcvs).
It is also ok to have only one ocamlcvs package, but it should provide libcvs-ocaml and libcvs-ocaml-dev virtual packages. But then, dpkg is yet broken with respect to virtual packages and versioned dependencies. Friendly, Sven Luther
