Re: ocaml: patches needed
Yaakov, Thanks for updating OCaml to use FlexDLL. There are some further patches required for a fully-functional OCaml: I agree with your suggestions, and I'll use your patches and cygport file, except for the way you implement this: 2) package camlp4 separately due to its size; I think it's a bad idea to have something named ocaml that doesn't implement the full upstream package. What I will do instead is: ocaml-base for the system except camlp4 ocaml-camlp4 for camlp4 ocamlan empty helper package that depends on ocaml-base and ocaml-camlp4 I'm not sure what to name the base package: it could be ocaml-base or ocaml-core. Is there a generally-accepted naming convention for such cases? -- Damien -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: ocaml: patches needed
On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 15:47 +0200, Damien Doligez wrote: I think it's a bad idea to have something named ocaml that doesn't implement the full upstream package. What I will do instead is: ocaml-base for the system except camlp4 ocaml-camlp4 for camlp4 ocamlan empty helper package that depends on ocaml-base and ocaml-camlp4 I'm not sure what to name the base package: it could be ocaml-base or ocaml-core. Is there a generally-accepted naming convention for such cases? No, but Debian uses ocaml-base, so I'd suggest that. Yaakov -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
