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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC8DBC6B for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:54:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l74Hssl0019350 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:54:55 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAFRatEZ5LGJp/2dsb2JhbAAN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,220,1183300200"; d="scan'208";a="167110305" Received: from ppp121-44-98-105.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.98.105]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2007 03:24:51 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Sorted list From: skaller To: Richard Jones Cc: Brian Hurt , tmp123@menta.net, ocaml ml In-Reply-To: <20070804162135.GA7370@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <46B4485B.7040406@menta.net> <46B454ED.700@philippewang.info> <1186226538.14440.105.camel@rosella.wigram> <46B48F3C.1040904@menta.net> <1186242141.11801.10.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070804162135.GA7370@furbychan.cocan.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:54:47 +1000 Message-Id: <1186250087.6025.41.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46B4BD6E.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0100,:01 lgpl:01 iterator:01 ocaml:01 distros:01 ocaml:01 lgpl:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ffau:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 python:03 algorithms:03 On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 17:21 +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > Well, I would like to see a community process for selecting, > > implementing, documenting and maintaining a set of good algorithms > > which go IN THE STANDARD DISTRIBUTION (under the usual LGPL+X licence, > > with a disclaimer the code base isn't maintained by Inria, merely > > distributed on behalf of the community). > > But what's wrong with extlib? Now I know it's not the "Standard" > distribution, but that's a mere packaging issue. A 'mere' packaging issue??? That's the very issue that concerns me. I think there are other (technical) problems with extlib too: the iterator design is a bit suspicious, and the implementation is using Obj.magic without Inria support. However the packaging issue is the primary problem, for this and other 3PLs (third party libraries). My own package requires standard Python, Ocaml, and C++ distros. That's it. That's already bad enough. The only 3PL's allowed are provided as source and built by the Felix build system. On the Ocaml side this includes Dypgen and OCS Scheme. Extlib couldn't be included this way because it is LGPL. Felix is FFAU (free for any use modulo propagating copyright notices). I carefully avoid 3PL's I can't include as source, and as many complications -- such as camlp4/5 -- as possible. [I wish I could use ulex .. but it uses camlp4/5 extensions] Getting Ocaml to work at all on Windows is hard enough for clients. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net