ocaml port submissions

[Anil Madhavapeddy]

[resend from correct email]

On 19 May 2010, at 11:50, Rainer Müller wrote:
> 
>> Another thing I'll be looking into is updating the OCaml Batteries
>> Included port (caml-batteries).
>> 
>> I have a question. Should I continue with the caml- prefix for port
>> names? Some ports are named ocaml-* (which is widely used in naming
>> packages for Linux distributions).
> 
> This is something I do not have the knowledge to give advice. As far as
> I know caml is the language and ocaml is an implementation. So in
> theory, would it be possible to use these ports with another
> implementation or do they contain ocaml specific parts?
> 
> If others are going with ocaml-* we could just do the same if that is
> what users would expect.

The majority of the ports use caml-*, so I would go with that (and potentially rename ocaml-bitstring and ocaml-ssl which are the only ocaml-* ones I think).

Thanks for looking at the ocaml ports; I've been sketching out how an ocaml module might work using the new OASIS build system within MacPorts, but its still a few months away as OASIS only just got released.  The main outstanding problem at the moment is that depdenency upgrades aren't reliable when the ocaml compiler is updated.

-anil