From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132CBBC6B for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:50:22 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAAZjg0fUnw7UhWdsb2JhbACCNY1mAQEBCAQGDxMHmQM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,258,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="21030843" Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net ([212.159.14.212]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2008 20:50:22 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JCKSr-0001w9-B3 for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:21 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Shared run-time DLLs for commerce Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:42:21 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <47824B45.1000507@frisch.fr> <20080108160351.GB4410@annexia.org> <20080108.203904.99447466393495928.Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umh.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <20080108.203904.99447466393495928.Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umh.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801081942.22146.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; run-time:01 christophe:01 troestler:01 0100,:01 zacchiroli:01 fwiw:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 maintainers:01 maintainers:01 caml-list:01 digest:01 On Tuesday 08 January 2008 19:39:04 Christophe TROESTLER wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:17:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > FWIW it would also save a lot of time and effort for maintainers of > > OCaml-related software in (binary-based) GNU/Linux distributions, as > > Debian and Red Hat. > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:03:51 +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > > This is certainly true. The single, brittle digest is a real problem > > for Red Hat. It should be at least possible to add additional values > > and types without that causing incompatibility. > > Why don't you guys discuss exactly what kind of robustness you need > and introduce a feature wish in the bug tracker? Of course, the package maintainers could always simply remove the digest test from their own OCaml package and hope for the best. ;-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e