From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pBCFHSm7001353 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:29 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMBAEka5k7ZSMDqi2dsb2JhbABDqn8iAQEBCgsLBxIFIoFyAQEEATo/BQsLGAklDwEEKCETFId0ArRti20EmiiMcQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,339,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="123042560" Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2011 16:17:23 +0100 Received: from moweb002.kundenserver.de (moweb002.kundenserver.de [172.19.20.108]) by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6BE1AB4F036; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from frosties.localnet ([95.208.118.96]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0Lr2I7-1R5AOn0Hop-00eZtL; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:22 +0100 Received: from mrvn by frosties.localnet with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Ra7cy-0006mn-68; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:16 +0100 From: Goswin von Brederlow To: Mehdi Dogguy Cc: Benedikt Meurer , Xavier Leroy , caml users References: <55531934-37A5-4CC5-AB67-20CE4CCE8269@googlemail.com> <4EE37070.4010702@inria.fr> <4EE5D593.9060708@inria.fr> <4EE5F173.1080607@dogguy.org> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4EE5F173.1080607@dogguy.org> (Mehdi Dogguy's message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:20:03 +0100") Message-ID: <8762hlizus.fsf@frosties.localnet> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:JxdPUTeLOR4HIVlJxIBse0P1bLGiyvtT+kSnEuy6NET dYK7biEaVOhZTFnCCPyXiQF7JRjy+PJT/gDitnYTx2hqjbitfQ aojo8CXdQiqujZ42cw31QJPhPSlzqie4I1etj0DYynh1CfFAK/ lkhb4NH01RoxSXOkJ8zo0j3QyqQ7A6CDpOeqCN5Octb2iQO/vB /n3zM+YDCr59BwHeA6Vaw== Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork (again) Mehdi Dogguy writes: > On 12/12/2011 11:59 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote: >> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:21 , Xavier Leroy wrote: >> >>> - It complicates the lives of OCaml users, packagers, and >>> 3rd-party library developers: what version should they use? what >>> will be the basis for the packagers's distribution-specific >>> patches? what happens if a library is compatible with one version >>> but not the other? what if the community effort runs out of steam >>> in a few years? >> >> If we can adopt the eglibc model, then the community thing will be >> the version shipped by distributions, i.e. the community thing is the >> OCaml for distributions/packagers, not an alternative to the official >> version. That way we do no longer need to maintain specific patches / >> versions for Debian, Red Hat, MacPorts, etc. This ensures that >> versions are compatible across different distributions (because they >> do no longer need to maintain their own set of patches). >> > > No, distributions won't start shipping the community distribution just > because it exists. I cannot speak for Fedora (and others), but > Debian/Ubuntu won't switch to the community distribution that easily. In > fact, it may appear as a seperate source package at some point but won't > replace INRIA's ocaml in Debian. That is probably what they said about eglibc too in the beginning. Now eglibc is used in Debian/Ubuntu and is (or because it is) a great success. Obviously nobody is going to say: Yes, lets start this project, we will ship it right away. It first has to proof itself. And first adopters will be those that have the most problems with the standard ocaml. MfG Goswin