From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 728317EEAF for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:44 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of alain@frisch.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=193.252.23.210; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="alain@frisch.fr"; x-sender="alain@frisch.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of alain@frisch.fr) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=193.252.23.210; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="alain@frisch.fr"; x-sender="alain@frisch.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@msa.smtpout.orange.fr) identity=helo; client-ip=193.252.23.210; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="alain@frisch.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@msa.smtpout.orange.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroAAJ+//lDB/BfSlGdsb2JhbABEgziDDbQKg3QOAQEBAQkLCQkUAySCHgEBBSMPAQVAARALGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBiBmqRYJAjzyBI4tbgyWBEwOSWgODL4VrjVSBbg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,515,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="191140141" Received: from msa01.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO msa.smtpout.orange.fr) ([193.252.23.210]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2013 17:35:28 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([90.44.19.86]) by mwinf5d48 with ME id r4bR1k0161rRe5E034bRAY; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:27 +0100 Message-ID: <50FEBFD4.9080004@frisch.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:32 +0100 From: Alain Frisch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIELDvG56bGk=?= CC: Philippe Veber , Anil Madhavapeddy , Thomas Gazagnaire , OCaml mailing-list , Mirage List References: <6833F17C-B642-4ED9-8C8F-2665A9742845@ocamlpro.com> <50F831B6.6020404@frisch.fr> <224865B3-055C-4E03-AA42-9F962AD516D7@recoil.org> <50F92486.2020704@frisch.fr> <50F92FA9.8050707@frisch.fr> <28252449-E0B3-4A0E-A001-57B72712DD99@recoil.org> <4144589AC12E46C09674D6D80D984289@erratique.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Opam package publication (was Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] beta-release of OPAM) On 01/19/2013 11:40 AM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: > Yes, I know, that was not the point. I was proposing a lighter process for a package to be included in opam's default repository. > > As Alain mentioned, the current process is rather involved for package developers --- but I disagree with his idea of an upload web interface. > > The idea is that package developers publish repos with their work Concretely, I guess that publish a repo means setting up a server somewhere. I don't think that everyone can easily do that or want to invest so much effort only to submit a single package. What's the benefit of the git/github submission workflow? I don't immediately see how this is easier for people responsible of accepting/rejection packages than, say, something based on an upload interface (or even simpler, an email with an attachment). -- Alain