Proposal ocaml guidelines

[Hans de Goede]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> The proposal I mailed to the list yesterday is now available here:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
> 
> 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.

Regards,

Hans