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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32269BC6C for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 03:05:19 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAOFeo0dYvxGE/2dsb2JhbACRfpx2 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,293,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7535169" Received: from www.rastageeks.org (HELO mail.rastageeks.org) ([88.191.17.132]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2008 03:05:18 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.135] (AMontsouris-156-1-20-41.w90-2.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.2.191.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.rastageeks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D30C9C50D for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 03:05:18 +0100 (CET) From: Romain Beauxis To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocamlcore.org: Discussions place, and requirements Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 03:05:17 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200802011336.09562.toots@rastageeks.org> <20080201132722.GA3130@pulp.rsise.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <20080201132722.GA3130@pulp.rsise.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802020305.17497.toots@rastageeks.org> X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0100,:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 dependencies:01 ocamlfind:01 'make:01 install':01 compilation:01 strive:98 snap:98 wrote:01 maintainer:01 caml-list:01 modules:02 module:03 Le Friday 01 February 2008 14:27:23 Pietro Abate, vous avez =E9crit=A0: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:36:09PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > Second questions is ocaml modules that we are going to distribute there. > > While we have discussed that different way we could use to collect > > projects from different places, I don't think we discussed the minimal > > support that the module should provide when it comes to installing and > > registering the module. > > I think that for the moment it's useless to strive to convert every and > each ocaml developer to use the same build system. As I suggested > before, what we should do is only to agree to an interface and then let > the various distribution to deal with build dependencies. In your > example, if a library don't use ocamlfind, this is ok. The only > important thing is to honor the build interface. > > As a developer (and as a software maintainer) I imagine a world where if > I want to use library x.y I've only to take care to give it the right > tools to build, but with the assurance that if I call 'make install', > the library will end up in the right place. Ocamlcore.org would contain > all these libraries so fetching a new version from the net and > re-compiling it would be a snap. > > One day we could hope for a convergence in the building tool department > as well, but I think is far too early to call for this kind of > standardization. For example it would be great if all developers would > integrate the debian patches to their build systems... I'm completly agnostic on the tool used and I agree that it should be more = an=20 issue of a common interface. The other needs I was expressing where: * Standard location for installation * Standard way to check if a system can provide build environment for a gi= ven=20 module, for compilation checks and build in projects using the module. Romain