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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 584667EC41 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:08:57 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of markus.mottl@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=74.125.82.182; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-sender="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of markus.mottl@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.182 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=74.125.82.182; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-sender="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-we0-f182.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=74.125.82.182; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-we0-f182.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvkAAJADg1BKfVK2kGdsb2JhbABEwQYIIwEBAQEJCQ0HFAQjgiABAQEDARICLAEUBxgFAQMBCwYFCwMKLiEBAREBBQEcBhMUBQmHTwEDCQadBgkDjCiCdoQhChknDVmIdQEFDIpqaYZvA5QcgVWLKYMvFimELQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,622,1344204000"; d="scan'208";a="159767135" Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Oct 2012 22:08:56 +0200 Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x43so1335329wey.27 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:08:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iEJvrpZL+7f6zdRQmqo31Qm4PuX45fV/AFljzURDm9g=; b=DenRKWC4GIeFeBKjsYraS1Q4nx2+t5G4gEcnM+i0IVFLRdR6RQRPYy6QVuVPdq0xTE 2oDS0oic0kcmjYKTENbU+hZrsq2EGrvsacz9nDxCVVCHjYPYJ9Iqfz4H2ZzXumrjAibP 7pCAJYHzKdzHy0dsZtAP92wZSv1u9uzV/9u+JXJADjhSr6dbs3f7NajSssOyJgKzOyT4 VWZ8Oe7T65CrmTC0Q0GfJ7Nn4Dg2nFnLPXq7MegH2UZ4/4UWfiaT/IouCwrHgHx5HJLT H4Po9F4rX1RBxqYxT9GaZFjczZJjl8fx/PAaQs3GdZBNQIa0VcXuTeIHhRp0GxZ5Sp3U 5TNw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.139.201 with SMTP id c51mr1302003wej.206.1350763736053; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.160.198 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:08:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:08:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: Markus Mottl To: Paolo Donadeo Cc: OCaml mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Labs On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Paolo Donadeo wrote: > Do we really need of yet another package manager? How can't OPAM scatter the > community further? Why should another package manager scatter the community? If a new package manager turned out to be worse than existing ones, nobody would use it. If it turned out to be better, why should having this alternative be a bad thing? I have so far been quite pleased with OPAM. In my opinion it makes life easier for both package users and contributors than other existing approaches I have tried so far. It's no surprise that it already offers an impressive range of packages at this early stage. My feeling is it will have a great future and has the potential to become the standard packaging tool for managing OCaml installations. > Now, if I write a small library and I want to make it available to OCaml > developers, I have to care about: making the source code Debian and Red Hat > friendly, godi friendly, oasis-db friendly and, now, OPAM. And there are > probably other systems I don't even know. I don't really care about specifically supporting binary distributions, since I'm not targeting one particular platform (Linux) anyway. Binary packagers will contact you (the developer) if there is any sort of awkwardness about your configure/build/install process, which happens exceedingly rarely anyway. The problems I had with Godi were not so much with how to distribute my sources, but the elaborate and error-prone process required to release Godi packages. Being Oasis-DB friendly means, I guess, simply using Oasis for package specification. This specification is generally useful, also for releasing to other package managers, and doesn't just support Oasis-DB. > It's not a critics or a rant, but honestly I need a compass to orient myself > in the jungle of package managers for OCaml, and I'm using OCaml since > years, think about a novice... To me personally OCaml package management tools have not been particularly satisfactory for years. OPAM is a fresh if not to say refreshing approach. If OPAM had been available to me when I was a novice, it would have made my first OCaml experience so much better. Regards, Markus -- Markus Mottl http://www.ocaml.info markus.mottl@gmail.com