From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37CFBC40 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:31:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9T2VAdr011743 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:31:10 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA17982 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:31:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9T2V71n008275 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:31:09 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp217-99.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.217.99]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9T2V04Y045153; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:01:02 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Packaging OCaml for Linux From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Matt Gushee Cc: caml-list , godi-list In-Reply-To: <20041028204047.GB5402@swordfish> References: <20041028204047.GB5402@swordfish> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1099017059.11063.123.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 29 Oct 2004 12:31:00 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4181AB6E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4181AB6B.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 imho:01 cvs:01 tarball:01 heap:01 sourceforge:01 lgpl:01 glebe:01 061:98 nsw:01 compile:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 06:40, Matt Gushee wrote: > Hello, all-- > > I recently decided to try a new Linux distribution--Arch--and > quickly became an enthusiastic convert. Now, I've noticed that there is > no OCaml package for Arch Linux, and I would like to provide one. I'd > like to hear the community's opinion on a couple of questions: > > 1) Which OCaml distribution should be the basis for the Linux package: > the basic distribution from INRIA, or GODI? Why do you think so? Godi is definitely worth looking at as an option IMHO. First: Godi's Ocaml is the standard one anyhow, but you can opt to grab the CVS version instead of the tarball. Second, Godi gives you a heap of extra packages in a standard way, and know how to rebuild things as needed. Third, whilst some OS may have some problems with Godi based install, it should be working just fine for Linux. Downsides: Godi may try to grab data off the Internet. I'm not sure if there's a way to specify 'offline only' which may be needed for some installations (for example Sourceforge compile farm machines are effectively offline). Also there is no licence service. Since package managers load others automatically, there needs to be a way to determine the overall licensing situation (eg some package might be BSD but depend on an LGPL one, some program you write may need packages A, B and C, and you might want to know if that's compatible with your program's licence). -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net