[Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

Hello,

I'm pleased to announce the first release of caml-get, an experimental 
tool to distribute and get Objective-Caml code, in a way similar to the
apt-get utility.

What is it ? How does it work ? Where to get it ? Answers are on the
caml-get home page:
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~guesdon/Tools/camlget/

Comments are welcome, especially since I don't know about any similar
tool.

Regards,

-- 
Maxence Guesdon

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[skaller]

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 03:42, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm pleased to announce the first release of caml-get, an experimental 
> tool to distribute and get Objective-Caml code, in a way similar to the
> apt-get utility.

I've had a brief look, and it looks quite
interesting, but I have a question:

(1) How does it handle licencing issues?


(2) Another comment:
(** This function returns the content of a file in the form of one
string.
   @cgname Files.input_file_as_string 
   @version 1.0
*)
val input_file_as_string : string -> string

This is too heavy for regular use. 
How about a quick defaulted form:
------------------------------------------
(**@cgscan:File @version 1.0 *)
(*Near the top of the .mli file, enable scanning,
default to putting things in the File repository module *)
....
....
(**@* This function ....*)
(* ^^ says to export as named using default module and version *)
------------------------------------------

This means once you have set up the files for scanning,
you can add documented elements with two keystrokes.
You can still use the heavy form of course.

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@tpg.com.au
snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix: http://felix.sf.net




-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Eray Ozkural]

On Tuesday 20 January 2004 03:15, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 03:42, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm pleased to announce the first release of caml-get, an experimental
> > tool to distribute and get Objective-Caml code, in a way similar to the
> > apt-get utility.
>
> I've had a brief look, and it looks quite
> interesting, but I have a question:
>
> (1) How does it handle licencing issues?

I guess licensing is for people to worry about, not programs :)

Cheers,

-- 
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara  KDE Project: http://www.kde.org
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo  Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

On 20 Jan 2004 12:15:11 +1100
skaller <skaller@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 03:42, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I'm pleased to announce the first release of caml-get, an experimental 
> > tool to distribute and get Objective-Caml code, in a way similar to the
> > apt-get utility.
> 
> I've had a brief look, and it looks quite
> interesting, but I have a question:
> 
> (1) How does it handle licencing issues?

I think about adding a @license tag to indicate the license of each element.

> (2) Another comment:
> (** This function returns the content of a file in the form of one
> string.
>    @cgname Files.input_file_as_string 
>    @version 1.0
> *)
> val input_file_as_string : string -> string
> 
> This is too heavy for regular use. 
> How about a quick defaulted form:
> ------------------------------------------
> (**@cgscan:File @version 1.0 *)
> (*Near the top of the .mli file, enable scanning,
> default to putting things in the File repository module *)
> ....
> ....
> (**@* This function ....*)
> (* ^^ says to export as named using default module and version *)
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> This means once you have set up the files for scanning,
> you can add documented elements with two keystrokes.
> You can still use the heavy form of course.

Good, i like the idea ! I'll add something like that. Thanks.

Cheers,

Maxence

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:37:30 +0200
Eray Ozkural <exa@kablonet.com.tr> wrote:

> On Tuesday 20 January 2004 03:15, skaller wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 03:42, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm pleased to announce the first release of caml-get, an experimental
> > > tool to distribute and get Objective-Caml code, in a way similar to the
> > > apt-get utility.
> >
> > I've had a brief look, and it looks quite
> > interesting, but I have a question:
> >
> > (1) How does it handle licencing issues?
> 
> I guess licensing is for people to worry about, not programs :)

But providing an easy way to indicate the license is important, I think,
-> the @license tag I want to add.

Cheers,

Maxence

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[skaller]

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:12, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:37:30 +0200
> > I guess licensing is for people to worry about, not programs :)
> 
> But providing an easy way to indicate the license is important, I think,
> -> the @license tag I want to add.

Some licences .. most licences unfortunately ..
create problems for such fine granularity.
Technically to 'element-get' a single element 
which is a 3 line function .. you'd have to include
the whole licence blurb of 60 lines or whatever.

In interscript (my literate progamming/packaging system),
I created some mechanism in which a single copy of each 
required licence could be shipped with a package..
but the licences were never included in the actual sources.
[The typeset output contained a link to the file for html,
or a reference for latex, etc ..).

Anyhow, when you 'element-get' an element, you probably
have to ensure the element is

(a) at least tagged in the fragment source with the licence name
(b) a copy of the required notice is fetched as well

.. even if the whole notice isn't included with each element.


-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@tpg.com.au
snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix: http://felix.sf.net




-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

On 22 Jan 2004 00:59:51 +1100
skaller <skaller@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:12, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:37:30 +0200
> > > I guess licensing is for people to worry about, not programs :)
> > 
> > But providing an easy way to indicate the license is important, I think,
> > -> the @license tag I want to add.
> 
> Some licences .. most licences unfortunately ..
> create problems for such fine granularity.
> Technically to 'element-get' a single element 
> which is a 3 line function .. you'd have to include
> the whole licence blurb of 60 lines or whatever.
> 
> In interscript (my literate progamming/packaging system),
> I created some mechanism in which a single copy of each 
> required licence could be shipped with a package..
> but the licences were never included in the actual sources.
> [The typeset output contained a link to the file for html,
> or a reference for latex, etc ..).
> 
> Anyhow, when you 'element-get' an element, you probably
> have to ensure the element is
> 
> (a) at least tagged in the fragment source with the licence name
> (b) a copy of the required notice is fetched as well
> 
> .. even if the whole notice isn't included with each element.

That's what I was thinking about: the mandatory license tag could
take an url and the license would be retrieved from that url when
the caml-get archive is retrieved. If a license could not be
retrieved (because of a wrong url for example), the element would
not be available in the client repository.

- Maxence

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2004 00:59:51 +1100
> skaller <skaller@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:12, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:37:30 +0200
> > > > I guess licensing is for people to worry about, not programs :)
> > > 
> > > But providing an easy way to indicate the license is important, I think,
> > > -> the @license tag I want to add.
> > 
> > Some licences .. most licences unfortunately ..
> > create problems for such fine granularity.
> > Technically to 'element-get' a single element 
> > which is a 3 line function .. you'd have to include
> > the whole licence blurb of 60 lines or whatever.
> > 
> > In interscript (my literate progamming/packaging system),
> > I created some mechanism in which a single copy of each 
> > required licence could be shipped with a package..
> > but the licences were never included in the actual sources.
> > [The typeset output contained a link to the file for html,
> > or a reference for latex, etc ..).
> > 
> > Anyhow, when you 'element-get' an element, you probably
> > have to ensure the element is
> > 
> > (a) at least tagged in the fragment source with the licence name
> > (b) a copy of the required notice is fetched as well
> > 
> > .. even if the whole notice isn't included with each element.
> 
> That's what I was thinking about: the mandatory license tag could
> take an url and the license would be retrieved from that url when
> the caml-get archive is retrieved. If a license could not be
> retrieved (because of a wrong url for example), the element would
> not be available in the client repository.

Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

> > That's what I was thinking about: the mandatory license tag could
> > take an url and the license would be retrieved from that url when
> > the caml-get archive is retrieved. If a license could not be
> > retrieved (because of a wrong url for example), the element would
> > not be available in the client repository.
> 
> Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
> reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.

Would it be ok it the license was put in the client repository and printed
with the code when the (for example) -l option is given ? (By default
the complete license information would not be printed with the code, only
the url where to find it.) This way the license is available but not
always added to your file when you want to use an element of the repository
in your code.

Friendly,

Maxece

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:54:52PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > > That's what I was thinking about: the mandatory license tag could
> > > take an url and the license would be retrieved from that url when
> > > the caml-get archive is retrieved. If a license could not be
> > > retrieved (because of a wrong url for example), the element would
> > > not be available in the client repository.
> > 
> > Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
> > reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.
> 
> Would it be ok it the license was put in the client repository and printed
> with the code when the (for example) -l option is given ? (By default
> the complete license information would not be printed with the code, only
> the url where to find it.) This way the license is available but not
> always added to your file when you want to use an element of the repository
> in your code.

Imagine a guy who ocaml-get's a given bit of code on his laptops, and
then wants to work on it in a plane or somewhere else offline ?

He will then have no access ot the licence, which is not ok.

(But then, i have not looked at your work in detail, and may have missed
something).

The best would be to have, for each bit of source you can ocaml-get, a
link to a licence file, which may be common to many ocaml-gettable
sources, and which get downloaded only if it has not already, maybe with
a md5sum check to make sure it is indeed the same licence.

Then, you can just have the licence tag or whatever refer to a file on
the client harddisk, and there will be no problem.

BTW, how does ocaml-get integrate (or not) with the debian packaging
effort ? Will it be possible to use it to install non-packaged stuff in
a debian policy friendly way or something like that ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[skaller]

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 01:35, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:

> Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
> reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.

I think that is easily solved as Maxence suggested.

The problem is that some licences require that the 
licence or a reduced version of it *also* occur
in every source file, and not just as a separate
document in the distribution.

I don't think the tool should try to solve that.
I think that if this is the case the vendor
simply can't put the elements into a repository
without actually placing the whole licence
in front of each fragment.

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@tpg.com.au
snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix: http://felix.sf.net




-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:23:04AM +1100, skaller wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 01:35, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> 
> > Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
> > reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.
> 
> I think that is easily solved as Maxence suggested.
> 
> The problem is that some licences require that the 
> licence or a reduced version of it *also* occur
> in every source file, and not just as a separate
> document in the distribution.

Well, but at least the licence should be put in every source tarball or
something, and i believe it is good that each individual file also comes
with a single line telling the licence that is used and where to find
it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

> > Would it be ok it the license was put in the client repository and printed
> > with the code when the (for example) -l option is given ? (By default
> > the complete license information would not be printed with the code, only
> > the url where to find it.) This way the license is available but not
> > always added to your file when you want to use an element of the repository
> > in your code.
> 
> Imagine a guy who ocaml-get's a given bit of code on his laptops, and
> then wants to work on it in a plane or somewhere else offline ?
> 
> He will then have no access ot the licence, which is not ok.
> 
> (But then, i have not looked at your work in detail, and may have missed
> something).

In fact, I was thinking of the following algorithm:
- the client does
  caml-get update http://foo.bar/archive.cga
- then caml-get retrieves the archive, and for each element, look at the
  url of the license, retrieves it, and store it in the client repository,
  making it available to the use even when he/she is offline.
 
> The best would be to have, for each bit of source you can ocaml-get, a
> link to a licence file, which may be common to many ocaml-gettable
> sources, and which get downloaded only if it has not already, maybe with
> a md5sum check to make sure it is indeed the same licence.

That could be one way to store it, indeed.

> Then, you can just have the licence tag or whatever refer to a file on
> the client harddisk, and there will be no problem.
> 
> BTW, how does ocaml-get integrate (or not) with the debian packaging
> effort ? Will it be possible to use it to install non-packaged stuff in
> a debian policy friendly way or something like that ?

Caml-get is done to help the developer, by making use of *pieces* of
code easier, thus not making his/her software depend on a library if it only
uses one or two functions of this library for example. This can be seen
as way to distribute a software which otherwise would depend on a
hard-to-install or no-packaged software.

But if a software heavily uses a library, it should rather really depend on
this lib (that is: link with it) rather than use caml-get to copy-paste
all the library.

Does it answer your question ?

Friendly,

Maxence

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[skaller]

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:

> Well, but at least the licence should be put in every source tarball or
> something, and i believe it is good that each individual file also comes
> with a single line telling the licence that is used and where to find
> it.

I agree but (a) some licences seem to ask for more,
and (b) exactly what is a 'file'?

I mean, the tarball is a file..
If you download Felix, you get a set of literate programmed
files that each generate multiple Ocaml files ..

How would I merge all those elements into a single
'util.ml' file? With a licence tag for each element still?
Author? Reference to orginal source? Or is it enough
to collate all of that and put it all in one
place at the top of the file 'util.ml'. Or if I make
20 or so files from more significant elements ..
just the whole distribution LICENCE says:

"all the code here is licenced BSD MIT GPL 
simultaneously .. "

LOL! GPL isn't merely a virus .. it appears to have mutated 
into many different genotypes now .. :-))

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@tpg.com.au
snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix: http://felix.sf.net




-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:29 +0100
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:23:04AM +1100, skaller wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 01:35, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > 
> > > Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
> > > reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.
> > 
> > I think that is easily solved as Maxence suggested.
> > 
> > The problem is that some licences require that the 
> > licence or a reduced version of it *also* occur
> > in every source file, and not just as a separate
> > document in the distribution.
> 
> Well, but at least the licence should be put in every source tarball or
> something, and i believe it is good that each individual file also comes
> with a single line telling the licence that is used and where to find
> it.

caml-get could have an option to add or remove the license content
for the caml-get elements in the .ml of .mli files. This way, you
work with no license information in your code, not to pollute your
file when you edit it, and when you're ready to distribute it, you
add the license information with one caml-get command.
What do you think of this ?
Another way could be for caml-get to generate LICENSE1, LICENSE2, ..., files
and add a reference to these files in the inserted code.

Friendly,

- Maxence

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:42:20PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > > Would it be ok it the license was put in the client repository and printed
> > > with the code when the (for example) -l option is given ? (By default
> > > the complete license information would not be printed with the code, only
> > > the url where to find it.) This way the license is available but not
> > > always added to your file when you want to use an element of the repository
> > > in your code.
> > 
> > Imagine a guy who ocaml-get's a given bit of code on his laptops, and
> > then wants to work on it in a plane or somewhere else offline ?
> > 
> > He will then have no access ot the licence, which is not ok.
> > 
> > (But then, i have not looked at your work in detail, and may have missed
> > something).
> 
> In fact, I was thinking of the following algorithm:
> - the client does
>   caml-get update http://foo.bar/archive.cga
> - then caml-get retrieves the archive, and for each element, look at the
>   url of the license, retrieves it, and store it in the client repository,
>   making it available to the use even when he/she is offline.

It should either not download the archive or put a fat warning if the
licence is not retrievable, but i think this is already your intention.

> > The best would be to have, for each bit of source you can ocaml-get, a
> > link to a licence file, which may be common to many ocaml-gettable
> > sources, and which get downloaded only if it has not already, maybe with
> > a md5sum check to make sure it is indeed the same licence.
> 
> That could be one way to store it, indeed.

:)

> > Then, you can just have the licence tag or whatever refer to a file on
> > the client harddisk, and there will be no problem.
> > 
> > BTW, how does ocaml-get integrate (or not) with the debian packaging
> > effort ? Will it be possible to use it to install non-packaged stuff in
> > a debian policy friendly way or something like that ?
> 
> Caml-get is done to help the developer, by making use of *pieces* of
> code easier, thus not making his/her software depend on a library if it only
> uses one or two functions of this library for example. This can be seen
> as way to distribute a software which otherwise would depend on a
> hard-to-install or no-packaged software.
> 
> But if a software heavily uses a library, it should rather really depend on
> this lib (that is: link with it) rather than use caml-get to copy-paste
> all the library.
> 
> Does it answer your question ?

Well, i was thinking of some way of automatically or semi-automatically
transforming a bit of caml-getted source into a proper debian package.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Maxence Guesdon]

> > In fact, I was thinking of the following algorithm:
> > - the client does
> >   caml-get update http://foo.bar/archive.cga
> > - then caml-get retrieves the archive, and for each element, look at the
> >   url of the license, retrieves it, and store it in the client repository,
> >   making it available to the use even when he/she is offline.
> 
> It should either not download the archive or put a fat warning if the
> licence is not retrievable, but i think this is already your intention.

Yes. "Je dirais même plus", when downloading an archive, only the elements whose
license can be retrieved will be added to the client repository. 
 
> > Caml-get is done to help the developer, by making use of *pieces* of
> > code easier, thus not making his/her software depend on a library if it only
> > uses one or two functions of this library for example. This can be seen
> > as way to distribute a software which otherwise would depend on a
> > hard-to-install or no-packaged software.
> > 
> > But if a software heavily uses a library, it should rather really depend on
> > this lib (that is: link with it) rather than use caml-get to copy-paste
> > all the library.
> > 
> > Does it answer your question ?
> 
> Well, i was thinking of some way of automatically or semi-automatically
> transforming a bit of caml-getted source into a proper debian package.

I don't think so, then. caml-get has no information about how to compile,
where to install,..., and is not intented to, since it is not a replacement
for the "traditional" way of distributing code.

- Maxence

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:53:09PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:29 +0100
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:23:04AM +1100, skaller wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 01:35, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a
> > > > reduced version is available together with the source you distribute.
> > > 
> > > I think that is easily solved as Maxence suggested.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that some licences require that the 
> > > licence or a reduced version of it *also* occur
> > > in every source file, and not just as a separate
> > > document in the distribution.
> > 
> > Well, but at least the licence should be put in every source tarball or
> > something, and i believe it is good that each individual file also comes
> > with a single line telling the licence that is used and where to find
> > it.
> 
> caml-get could have an option to add or remove the license content
> for the caml-get elements in the .ml of .mli files. This way, you
> work with no license information in your code, not to pollute your
> file when you edit it, and when you're ready to distribute it, you
> add the license information with one caml-get command.
> What do you think of this ?

Well, the important thing, i believe, is for the developer to not forget
under what licence is a given file he is working on.

> Another way could be for caml-get to generate LICENSE1, LICENSE2, ..., files
> and add a reference to these files in the inserted code.

Yep, that was what i am proposing. The full licence in a separate file
in the client repository, and a small reference to it (and to the
original author/source) in a single line or two of the code file.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

-------------------
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