From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <berenger@riken.jp>
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB2EF7EC41
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:48:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  berenger@riken.jp) identity=pra; client-ip=134.160.33.175;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  berenger@riken.jp designates 134.160.33.175 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.160.33.175;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@postman.riken.jp designates 134.160.33.175 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=134.160.33.175;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="postmaster@postman.riken.jp";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmMBAHr2hVCGoCGvfGdsb2JhbABEvX2EBgEBCxYFPYIgAQEEAThABgsLGAkWDwkDAgECAUUTBgIBAYduAwYDBqwPhnYMiVWLWINMgyMDiFiNGYVkjVM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,632,1344204000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="178434569"
Received: from postman3.riken.jp (HELO postman.riken.jp) ([134.160.33.175])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2012 03:48:00 +0200
Received: from postman.riken.jp (postman3.riken.jp [127.0.0.1])
	by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 9412438380FF
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:47:57 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [172.27.98.103] (rikad98.riken.jp [134.160.214.98])
	by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2766438201CB
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:47:55 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <5085F74B.2050908@riken.jp>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:47:55 +0900
From: Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <CALdQWQ46M2hUtsscNueW0BD99pLnYJ2JwbrPFTROg1dJQgQEbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALdQWQ46M2hUtsscNueW0BD99pLnYJ2JwbrPFTROg1dJQgQEbg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.0.2009776, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.23.13323
Subject: Re: custom copies of libraries (was Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Labs)

On 10/21/2012 08:45 PM, Yoriyuki Yamagata wrote:
> 2012/10/21 Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr>:
>> avoiding custom copies of libraries that are published independently,
>
> Completely off-topic, but is making custom copies so bad thing?  I
> incline to include third-party's libraries into my libraries unless
> the library is too big, so that the my libraries are compiled with
> libraries whose behaviors are tested and guaranteed.

Plus, when you do this, your software can be compiled and run right 
after checkout.

> If we have a good package management system, things would be a bit
> different, but still a package management system guarantees only, say,
> that the version numbers of libraries are higher than XXXX, which does
> not preclude many problems.