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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62830BBC1 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:41:58 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAANcVzkfAXQImh2dsb2JhbACQcgEBAQgKKZog X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,450,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="23386015" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2008 12:41:58 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m25Bfv8s017995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:41:57 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJoVzkdQDPIbhWdsb2JhbACQcgEBAQgEBgcIEweaIw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,450,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8027792" Received: from smtp20.orange.fr ([80.12.242.27]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2008 12:41:57 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2011.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 26C6D1C000B6; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:41:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.59] (APuteaux-154-1-94-92.w83-204.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.204.229.92]) by mwinf2011.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DA55F1C000A2; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:41:56 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20080305114156894.DA55F1C000A2@mwinf2011.orange.fr Message-ID: <47CE8702.6070202@frisch.fr> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:41:54 +0100 From: Alain Frisch User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Berke Durak Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries References: <47CD82F3.20600@exalead.com> <20080305001003.GB14117@annexia.org> <47CE73CB.8070904@exalead.com> In-Reply-To: <47CE73CB.8070904@exalead.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47CE8705.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; frisch:01 frisch:01 syntax:01 berke:01 durak:01 ocamlfind:01 ocamlfind:01 -pp:01 flags:01 ocaml:01 stdlib:01 ocaml:01 developpers:01 modular:01 wrote:01 Berke Durak wrote: > It's not better. It's not the same thing; ocamlcs could indeed be > implemented > with ocamlfind. I think ocamlfind basically solves the technical aspect of this OCaml-OSR distribution (although if you are ready to add .cma or -pp flags explicitly, just installing all the selected libraries together in the same directory as OCaml stdlib would also work). But of course, the real issues with an extended distribution are not technical. Btw, there has already been an attempt to maintain such a distribution several years ago (Google for "Caml Development Kit"). It might be wise to look at the reasons why it is no longer active. Some of the issues that need to be addressed: - what is the intended audience? The will influence both the selection process and the motivation of people putting efforts into the distribution. - what is the process to select new libraries, or to remove existing ones? I can imagine that many libraries will have a few supporters and no strong opponent, so there is a risk/chance that OCaml-OSR will just end up incorporating a huge amount of libraries. It should be decided early whether this is a good thing or not. - what is the policy w.r.t. to upgrades of libraries? It is very common that a new version of a library break existing code, so simply upgrading as soon as possible might not be the best choice. Should several versions of OCaml-OSR be maintained in parallel? - what should be done when a library doesn't work out-of-the box for a new version of OCaml? Should it be removed (temporarily) so as to allow an early distribution of OCaml-OSR with the new OCaml? - who's in charge of maintaining a web site, upgrading libraries, testing for several architecture, preparing releases, etc? This is a lot of work, so a collaborative approach might be needed, but responsibilities need to be defined. - will there be binary distributions? (Relying on Debian/Fedora/... OCaml developpers does not solve the question for Windows. - will the addition/upgrade of a single library force to reinstall all of OCaml-OSR, or will the distribution be made modular? - will there be a common place to find the documentation for all the selected packages? - will libraries that depend on C code and/or external components be accepted? -- Alain