On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:20:21PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 09:42:24PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > - We think 'core' is a bit too generic a name and risks some > > confusion. If you would like to coordinate with us, then we can > > decide on a different name. (corelib? janestcore? - I admit I don't > > have a good suggestion). > > Same problem here, my intention was to call it ocaml-core, but the idea > of "pressing" Jane St for a better name together is neat. "janestcore" > sounds nice to me. If you feel so, go ahead and mail them with our > concerns; please put me in Cc.
OK, I'll do it in a moment. > > - For the description, you might want to use the Fedora description, > > which is in this file, under '%description': > > > > http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-core.spec > > A bit too long for our standards, but in fact I have already grabbed > your module summary posted to the caml list and put it in README.Debian > (with the due kudos). It looks like that summary is exactly what you've > put in the Fedora description. Note there was a typo: at the end it says 'inigroups', it should read 'initgroups' (the name of the C function). > > - If you have patches either to make bin-prot big-endian or to excise > > those bits of core that depend on bin-prot, then I'll take them, or > > try to help. > > I haven't yet attacked the big-endian bits, but I'm working on a patch > to make bin-prot dependency optional and detected at compile time. Will > mail you back when I've something fully working. OK :-) Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]