From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED0927F890
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:08:40 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  fw@deneb.enyo.de) identity=pra; client-ip=46.237.207.196;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="fw@deneb.enyo.de";
  x-sender="fw@deneb.enyo.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  fw@deneb.enyo.de) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=46.237.207.196;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="fw@deneb.enyo.de";
  x-sender="fw@deneb.enyo.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@albireo.enyo.de) identity=helo;
  client-ip=46.237.207.196;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="fw@deneb.enyo.de";
  x-sender="postmaster@albireo.enyo.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAPM1N1Mu7c/E/2dsb2JhbABZgwbEH4ETFnSCJQEBAQMBOj8QCyEaCw8BR4gKDAHROBeOPUIHFoQiBJ8WBYtogXGBQDyBLg
X-IPAS-Result: AgAFAPM1N1Mu7c/E/2dsb2JhbABZgwbEH4ETFnSCJQEBAQMBOj8QCyEaCw8BR4gKDAHROBeOPUIHFoQiBJ8WBYtogXGBQDyBLg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,757,1389740400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="54637837"
Received: from albireo.enyo.de ([46.237.207.196])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 29 Mar 2014 22:08:40 +0100
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de)
	by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
	id 1WU0VX-0005xC-Rx; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:09:39 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
	id 1WU0UW-0006o0-NH; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:08:36 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Cc: Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp>
References: <532F8D40.4030007@riken.jp> <20140324083301.GE10374@annexia.org>
	<532FF7C6.8010608@riken.jp> <20140324110120.GM3162@annexia.org>
	<20140324110207.GA18751@annexia.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:08:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20140324110207.GA18751@annexia.org> (Richard W. M. Jones's
	message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:02:07 +0000")
Message-ID: <877g7c3e7f.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Anybody interested in creating binary RPMs for each
 official release of the compiler?

* Richard W. M. Jones:

>> But ideally, any rpm-based distro should have access
>> to the recent OCaml compilers, I fell (or I am just dreaming).
>
> We have to stick with the original OCaml compiler on RHEL releases
> because of binary compatibility.  Also EPEL policy doesn't allow us to
> ship an upgrading OCaml compiler in EPEL, since we can't replace
> packages from the original RHEL.

Technically, you could ship a Software Collection (RPM packages which
install under /opt and come with metadata to support integration with
sclutils).  Does EPEL policy allow that?