Proposal ocaml guidelines
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu May 3 18:34:40 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 20:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Gérard Milmeister wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 21:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> I got looking into this because of these review requests:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235804
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235805
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235815
> >> And I've come to the conclusion that we need some kinda ocaml
> >> packaging guidelines.
> >> Interesting with regards to this are:
> >> http://docs.pld-linux.org/ocaml.html
> >> http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_policy.txt
> > Maybe you could start an add something to the fedoraproject wiki, for
> > example a Ocaml SIG. There has also been some interest in this by
> > Richard Jones <rjones at redhat.com>.
> Yes an ocaml sig probably is a good idea. But as said I'm only the reviewer
> here, so to those interested, go ahead create a sig. Maybe Nigel Jones will
> want to join you too, as he is the submitter of the package review requests
> linked to above.
> Either way we need to put down some guidelines, since the current ocaml
> packages aren't packaged properly (when judging them by the debian / PLD
I can help get the guidelines approved but I'm not an OCaml packager so
most of the work will be up to you guys. Discuss the guidelines, either
put something under /wiki/PackagingDrafts/ or ping me with a copy that
you want to propose and I'll do it. Then it would be tremendously
helpful if one of you could make it to a Packaging Meeting where the
Guideline gets discussed by the Packaging Committee. That way you can
field questions immediately instead of me being a go-between.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the fedora-devel-list