From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA06015; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:07:14 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA05766 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:07:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from chopin.ai.univie.ac.at (chopin.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.170]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f7NI7CX03619 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:07:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from markus@localhost) by chopin.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id UAA08544; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:07:10 +0200 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:07:10 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Alain Frisch Cc: Caml list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Libraries in the distribution Message-ID: <20010823200710.A8319@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from frisch@clipper.ens.fr on Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 19:37:49 +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Alain Frisch wrote: > I think it is best to keep the OCaml distribution as small as possible, > and to facilitate the installation of other packages. I fully second this. Though I wouldn't mind PCRE being integrated into the standard distribution, I'd strongly prefer a convenient and safe packaging system. This is actually the top entry on my wish list, because I consider this the feature that would most likely make OCaml attractive to the mainstream. Today there are _plenty_ of OCaml-libraries floating around for the most varied purposes. Still, each of them comes with a non-standard way of installation (if at all...!). This is a _severe_ obstacle to exploiting the merits of free software development. > The current CDK approach seems a bit unrealistic to me: will a few > people take in charge the integration of all 3rd party packages ? > Something like CPAN seems more promising. I agree. > (I don't see how it could work without the support or at least an > initial impulsion from the Caml team, but they have probably more > interesting things to do. Maybe if would be in the interest of the > Caml Consortium to coordinate 3rd party efforts; is the status of the > Consortium a public information ?) Development of "social tools" would certainly be very beneficial for industrial use: fewer hassles for employed programmers, more available software, potentially more OCaml-programmers that can be hired, etc. I don't think it would be terribly expensive to let somebody do it. The Consortium should be very interested in funding such efforts. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr