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 OAA32292; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:01:19 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA32086 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:01:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.23]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h16D1Hf20792; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:01:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr (6.7.015) id 3E0C33FD019BD4D0; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:01:17 +0100 Received: from iliana (80.14.193.26) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.7.015) id 3E26DAA600C33D28; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:01:17 +0100 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18gleW-0001Ow-00; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:01:16 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:01:16 +0100 To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4 Message-ID: <20030206130116.GA5350@iliana> References: <20030206132829.G19706@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030206132829.G19706@verdot.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Sven Luther Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0100, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I don't refuse to develop Camlp4, I would be happy to continue improving > it, fixing bugs and helping users. I just say that, for internal political > reasons, I want that Camlp4 is distributed separately from OCaml. > > If this condition is accepted, you are going to have the better Camlp4 > I can do, and all requests from users are welcome. If it is not, I > stop developping it and you are going to get a Camlp4 loosing its > qualities little by little, because nobody knows Camlp4 like me. > > Therefore, if you want that Camlp4 be good and better, ask Michel > Mauny from the Cristal Project of INRIA, to accept the separation. > Camlp4 was developped separately the years before and everything > went well. Mmm, if i am not wrong, camlp4 was developped separatedly, but had a dependency on the ocaml source to build. I don't personally use camlp4, but i feel that build depending on the ocaml sources is a nightmare for package maintainers like me. So my personal preference on this would be to keep it in the ocaml package, or remove it but in a way that imposes no build dependencies on the ocaml source. That said, it is a long time ago, and i was not the camlp4 maintainer, so i may be wrong in remembering that. Anyway, would you care to give a bit more details about the practical results of the separation ? What about the streams ? Is it really not possible to resolv your political differences (with political, i guess you mean caml politics, not the other ones :)). Friendly, Sven Luther > > -- > Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE > http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ > ------------------- > To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners