From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA13605; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:16:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA13563 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.254]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g97BGWD24409; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D89D999009CAFFB; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:16:32 +0200 Received: from iliana (80.14.69.228) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D8011E300DBFC2A; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:16:32 +0200 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 17yW1P-0004sO-00; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 13:25:59 +0200 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:25:59 +0200 To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4 Message-ID: <20021007112559.GA18698@iliana> References: <20021006205517.B19829@verdot.inria.fr> <20021007072153.GA1326@iliana> <20021007105238.B25685@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021007105238.B25685@verdot.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > > Daniel, the one problem i have with separating camlp4 from ocaml, is > > that, if i remember well, the standalone camlp4 needed access to the > > ocaml sources to build. > > No: Camlp4 is really an independant program. Yes it uses some files of > ocaml, but they are duplicated in the Camlp4 sources (directory > ocaml_stuff). Ok, but it seems to me that this was not so previously (i was requested for a ocaml-source package at that time by the camlp4 maintainer, i think). > Between parentheses, these copied sources are the OCaml syntax tree, > which are not installed in the OCaml library. I had asked that they > are installed, like are installed some ".h" files, but it has been > refused. However, it would be useful, if people want to create another > preprocessor or use the OCaml syntax tree. If it ever becomes necessary to have them, i would much prefer that you tell me which files so i can install them or something. Sure i have a copy of the ocaml sources as the ocaml-source package, but it is an ugly solution. > > If we separate again, what will be the situation on this same topic ? > > will you again depend on the ocaml source ? Is there not a cleaner > > solution for this ? > > Programs often depend on versions of a compiler, for example with > the associated library. Well, yes, ok, that is no problem, the problem is if you need the _sources_ of the compiler to build the program, as opposed to having the correct version of the compiler available. And the associated libraries are already compiled, not in source form. This is what i was refering to when i was speaking of finding a cleaner solution than depending on the sources. > > And also i am curious, what is so difficult with continuing to release > > camlp4 as part of ocaml, but have a separate CVS tree for developpment, > > that you sync with ocaml from time to time (and probably before each new > > release), in the same way as DRI for example maintains a separate > > development tree from XFree86 ? > > I don't know the story of DRI and XFree86. The point is that I refuse > to sync: I consider that the ocaml team is not ready for the Why ? > industrialization level, although it pretends, because, at this level, > some "liberty of expression" should be more controlled. It is abnormal > that some member of the team considers that he is free to tell the > industrial contacts that the work of another member is "not serious". I don't see how the internal problems of the ocaml team has to do with the seriousness or the readiness for industrial purpose ? As long as you don't export it to the outside that is. > Can you imagine what happens if the second of Microsoft tells to a > customer that Windows is "not serious"? The guy would be dismissed. Sure, but he would have been right, would he not ? > I shall return working inside the ocaml directory, if and only if the > ocaml team behave as professionnals. ... > Another example: I was very shocked, some time ago, that the icon of > Caml Light was "Joe Camel". Very funny, for students, but serious at > industialization level. When I said that, they laughed at me, > telling that I have no sense of humour. Beside the fact that Camel could have sued you for unlicensed use of the icon, and that it may well be contrary to the french laws about publicity for cigarets, i don't think that the icon used for ocaml has bought anyone to smoke. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners