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