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 RAA07394; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:38:57 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA07833 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:38:56 +0100 (MET) 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 OAA32462 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:23:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h16DNQf22159 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:23:26 +0100 (MET) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24114 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:23:25 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:23:25 +0100 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4 Message-ID: <20030206142325.A24055@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20030206132829.G19706@verdot.inria.fr> <20030206130116.GA5350@iliana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030206130116.GA5350@iliana>; from luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr on Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:01:16PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:01:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > 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. I don't say that there is no drawback (with "nightmare", you exaggerate). Just consider the drawbacks of the different solutions. > Anyway, would you care to give a bit more details about the practical > results of the separation ? What about the streams ? The streams could be put back in the OCaml distribution as they were before. If the separation is accepted, I can put them in the OCaml archive with, better, some small code to avoid the problem of missing of tail recursion which was there before. > Is it really not possible to resolv your political differences (with > political, i guess you mean caml politics, not the other ones :)). Human reasons are political reasons. I am not a machine to produce code and what I ask is not too much. As the creator of Camlp4, I have the right to speak about my conditions of work and the right to say how my work have to be distributed. If you ignore it, it is normal that I stop working. -- 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