From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4407EC41 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:03:31 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of treinen@free.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=178.32.228.17; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="treinen@free.fr"; x-sender="treinen@free.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of treinen@free.fr) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=178.32.228.17; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="treinen@free.fr"; x-sender="treinen@free.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mo17.mail-out.ovh.net) identity=helo; client-ip=178.32.228.17; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="treinen@free.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@mo17.mail-out.ovh.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmIIALyrg1CyIOQRWGdsb2JhbABEwQ8YARcMCAgVJ4IgAQEEATpECws0EhQvGogEAQwKsCoJiiKLX4YPYAOVcAGOW4RP X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,625,1344204000"; d="scan'208";a="159791703" Received: from mo17.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.228.17]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2012 10:03:27 +0200 Received: from 20.mail-out.ovh.net (20.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.29.228]) by mo17.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E89FFF81DB for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:10:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 24094 invoked by uid 503); 21 Oct 2012 08:30:56 -0000 Received: from 85-24-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr (HELO seneca.free.fr) (109.190.24.85) by 20.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2012 08:30:56 -0000 Received: from rt by seneca.free.fr with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TPqVJ-0005Cu-Uf for caml-list@inria.fr; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:03:25 +0200 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:03:25 +0200 From: Ralf Treinen To: OCaml mailing list X-Ovh-Mailout: 178.32.228.17 (mo17.mail-out.ovh.net) Message-ID: <20121021080325.GF3966@free.fr> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 12880294935858281760 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeehvddrudduucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfhrhhomheptfgrlhhfucfvrhgvihhnvghnuceothhrvghinhgvnhesfhhrvggvrdhfrheqnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdttfdttdervd Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Labs On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 07:31:28PM +0200, Paolo Donadeo wrote: > Now, if I write a small library and I want to make it available to OCaml > developers, I have to care about: making the source code Debian and Red > Hat friendly, godi friendly, oasis-db friendly and, now, OPAM. And there Are these requirements really different ? All of these should go into the same directions, and improvements required from one of the packagers should benefit all other packagers and users : configuration scripts and Makefiles that work on a variety of platforms and respect environment variables, avoiding custom copies of libraries that are published independently, having complete and consistent licence information, providing documentation and man pages ... -Ralf