Re: [Caml-list] OPAM conventions

[Markus Mottl <markus.mottl@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   In my mind, there are only two sensible policies for naming OPAM packages:
>
>   a) OPAM packages should preserve the name of the original project.
>      Thus, if the project is named "ocaml-foo", the OPAM package will
>      also be "ocaml-foo".
>
>   b) OPAM packages should have the same name as the findlib entry.
>      If project "ocaml-foo" registers itself in findlib with name
>      "foo", then "foo" should also be the name of the OPAM package.
>
>    Good arguments can be made for and against each option.  Though this
>    is largely a bike-shedding issue, I think the community should make
>    a decision sooner rather than later.

I usually use the following naming conventions when releasing open
source libraries: if it is derived from some other (usually C-)
library, e.g. "pcre", then I add the suffix "-ocaml" to the
distribution file name to avoid confusing binary packagers.  I would
then release e.g. "pcre-ocaml-3.42.tar.gz".  If the library is not
derived from anything else, then the findlib name will be used to name
the distribution.  Findlib names should never have an "ocaml" suffix
or prefix, because it's clear that a findlib package is for OCaml
only.  Since OPAM is an OCaml tool, I'd suggest dropping the "ocaml"
suffixes or prefixes from its package names, too.

> 3) Package removal
>
>    For most values of "foo", package "foo" will just declare ["ocamlfind"
>    "remove" "foo"].  However, this approach seems a bit brittle to me.
>    If the Makefile supports "uninstall" (which is the usually the case
>    for OASIS packages), then I reckon that ["%{make}%" "uninstall"]
>    should be preferred.

That's a good question, which essentially boils down to how package
developers should specify configuring, building, installing, and
uninstalling packages.  I guess it would be healthy in the long term
to settle on a commonly used specification, possibly the Oasis format.
 One could then agree to always just call "configure" and "make" in
standardized ways under the assumption that these will behave as if
these scripts had been generated by Oasis (whether or not this is
actually the case).

> 4) Findlib dependency
>
>    Most packages do declare a dependency on ocamlfind.  However, this is
>    not universal, even for packages that do register themselves with findlib.
>    What should be the standard here: always declare a dependency, or omit
>    it altogether since it is implied?

I think findlib should be standard and implied as a dependency.  I
don't think people would be happy if forced to use libraries that
don't install with findlib.

Regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Mottl        http://www.ocaml.info        markus.mottl@gmail.com