From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 591FB7EE99 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:41:45 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of steph@glondu.net) identity=pra; client-ip=138.231.136.39; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="steph@glondu.net"; x-sender="steph@glondu.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of steph@glondu.net) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=138.231.136.39; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="steph@glondu.net"; x-sender="steph@glondu.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@redisdead.crans.org designates 138.231.136.39 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=138.231.136.39; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="steph@glondu.net"; x-sender="postmaster@redisdead.crans.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoBAJccplKK54gnl2dsb2JhbABZgz+DUrYXgTEWDgEBAQEBCBYHPIIlAQEEASNWEAsaAgUhAgIPAkYGDQEHAod4BgSxe488F4EpjQ8lMweCa4FIA5gUgTCFFYYYiGCBZw X-IPAS-Result: AhoBAJccplKK54gnl2dsb2JhbABZgz+DUrYXgTEWDgEBAQEBCBYHPIIlAQEEASNWEAsaAgUhAgIPAkYGDQEHAod4BgSxe488F4EpjQ8lMweCa4FIA5gUgTCFFYYYiGCBZw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,859,1378850400"; d="scan'208";a="40121315" Received: from redisdead.crans.org ([138.231.136.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2013 20:41:44 +0100 Received: from [10.125.1.2] (fbx.up7.fr [81.56.96.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by redisdead.crans.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E37F21D4; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:41:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52A61CF6.50609@glondu.net> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:41:42 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131005 Icedove/17.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIELDvG56bGk=?= CC: "caml-list@inria.fr" References: <31F4C46854FA4FEAAD2EA09D32A72E23@erratique.ch> <4F5AD22CADED45DBAD26A92D3F2B704D@erratique.ch> In-Reply-To: <4F5AD22CADED45DBAD26A92D3F2B704D@erratique.ch> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=49881AD3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Library installation procedure (for use with OPAM)? Le 09/12/2013 18:37, Daniel B=C3=BCnzli a =C3=A9crit : >> So, if everybody else have to implement them, opam's install files >> become a new standard for the OCaml cummunity? >=20 > Frankly besides maybe wodi on windows I'm not so sure I see something > reasonably competing with opam at that point, so that "everybody" may > not include a lot of persons. Personally I don't have time to care > for alternatives and I do what minimizes my admin/maintenance time at > most. You seem to forget all the system package managers (dpkg, rpm, ...). While opam does have its advantages, it does not really compete with them. >> Do most of us agree? (I'm not against it, I just don't want to rely >> on 50 different standards). >=20 > I don't think it's a question of agreeing, usage will tell. Besides I > don't see another standard, maybe `ocamlfind install` but it's > limited in what it can install (and I hope that eventually the > annoying two-headed structure ocamlfind/opam will disapear, e.g. the > notion of ocamlfind package could be merged in the compiler). The standard generic interface for package-manager-agnostic upstream packages is: ./configure && make && sudo make install PREFIX=3D/foo If people cannot agree on a standard implementation, at least they could agree on the interface. >> (A while ago, before opam, a new version of GODI broke on our main >> platform because of some ocamlnet configuration bug, but I was able >> to reinstall ocaml and about 25 third-party libraries and syntax >> extensions from scratch without too much pain =E2=86=92 we see great val= ue >> in that package-management independence) > Why not. I guess you can see the value of having each of these > libraries generating a .install file that you can process with a > simple command line tool rather than have to deal with the > idiosyncrasies of each custom (usually semi-broken) install > procedure. http://xkcd.com/927/ Cheers, --=20 St=C3=A9phane