On 27/09/10 13:37, Paolo Herms wrote: > On Sunday 26 September 2010 23:38:46 Magnus Therning wrote: >> I'm curious as to why the dependency on findlib is undesirable. >> > I've always thought of findlib as a hack to be able to recover ocaml > libraries that were manually installed all over the file system using make > install, maybe several versions in parallel, and that therefore it isn't > necessary if you use only clean archlinux packages for every library. > Maybe I'm wrong and findlib is nevertheless of practical interest but > personally, as a casual ocaml hacker, I use only one or two none-standard > libraries which work very well without findlib.
I agree that it's a bit of a hack, but in my mind it's a bit more than a way to handle manually installed libraries. It's absolutely *not* something that can be substituted by archlinux packages, instead it's solving the following problems: - distribution-independent discoverability of available packages, useful during configuration steps of building - handling of different flavours of the same library, byte-compiled vs native, threaded vs. non-threaded, used for linking vs used in the REPL, ... - used by OASIS and probably other build tools So I'm convinced that *both* findlib and arch packages is the way to go. > So, >> On 20/09/10 10:16, Simon Legner wrote: >>> do we really need three packages of the OCaml library ocamlgraph [1]? >> > certainly not three as I didn't spot any differences between ocamlgraph and > ocaml-ocamlgraph, but I'd suggest to keep mine so that people can choose what > they want and that Magnus takes over the ocamlgraph package, which is > currently orphan. No, let's delete 'ocamlgraph' and possibly keep both the other packages. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
