On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > > Thanks Xyne, that helps, I am going to try and figure out the best way to > > change the ocaml packaging process without just breaking all of the OCaml > > packages, i will have the guidelines up shortly and star t moving towards > > clean ArchLinux Ocaml. > > > > -Thomas S Hatch > > There seems to be only 6 OCaml packages in the repos: > > lablgtk > lablgtk2 > ocaml > camlp5 > camlp5-transitional > llvm-ocaml > > Check if they follow the guidelines that you propose and contact the > maintainers > of any that don't. If you explain the situation and provide a patch then > you'll > probably get a quick and positive response. > > Before you do, consider whether the names need to be changed. Most library > packages follow the convention of including the language name as a prefix, > e.g. > "perl-foo" or "haskell-bar". What's the state of the ocaml packages? > > lablgtk should probably be ocaml-lablgtk, etc. Consider how few packages > there > are in the repos, I doubt there would be much opposition to fixing clearly > broken names. > > Regards, > Xyne >
Thanks again Xyne, will do. As for the naming of ocaml packages roght now, often there are duplicates in the AUR, I will put that down on my list to hunt down problems! -Thomas S Hatch
