[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OCAML Debian package

On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 08:45:10PM +0100, Fernando Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Kristoffer Rose wrote:
> > This is a good idea but you should of course contact the maintainer of the
> > existing OCAML package, version 1.05-2, before going further!  It is
> > Christophe Le Bars <clebars@debian.org>.  Allow some weeks for the reply.
> I've already contacted him and got his blessing. I wouldn't have posted this
> comment about ocaml package if I had not.

Hello, ...

i have been wanting to package ocaml for some time now, i contacted the author
about the license, and let's say we have to discuss more about it, what is the
best place for discution about the ocaml license ? debian-license, debian-devel

> He said he didn't release more versions of ocaml after 1.05-2 because of
> licensing problems and that I should contact Objective Caml developer for
> permission. I contacted ocaml development team and they said there was no
> problem at all, it's fine to make a Debian package for ocaml 2.01.
> > documented, etc.  Maybe the system is so different that it should have a
> > new name so the two can coexist?  There may be many issues to discuss!
> No, no. Ocaml new versions only imply bugfixes and new functions etc.
> Binaries compiled are the same and code that runs on 1.05 will run on 2.01.
> I think there are enough improvements in version 2.01 to have to release a
> debian package for it. 

I think there was some serious new functionalities between ocaml1.07 and ocaml
2.00, but i don't remember exactly. ocaml1.05 is quite old, june-july 96 i
think, almost two years now, and it was at that time that the license changed,
i think it was supposed to become more non-free, don't know the old license,
but the new one is almost DFSG free, the only problem is that they don't allow
binaries of modified works, but i don't know if they will want to change that,
but i think we could come with a proposal on this topic to them.

> > Also you should be ready to prepare your package with whatever is necessary 
> > to compile it on non-i386 systems if this is at all possible.
> I think I can prepare sparc and maybe m68k package too, but there is no
> difference from compiling in i386 at all.

I will only release packages for ppc myself, not i386. The packages should
compile without problems, but i had difficulties with the ocaml debugger on
debian/ppc it is configured ok, but don't compile. I still don't solved that.

And remember for there is no native code compiler for linux/m68k, so don't put
the line make opt and friends in the debian/rules for m68k. I think a n
inclusion of the config file and some conditional rules will do the job just

> > pressure up on INRIA to change over to the GPL since there is a strong
> > movement inside INRIA to do this with Bernard Lang among its chief
> > advocates.)
> I do agree. I will ask Xavier Leroy about it, maybe they're chaging their
> mind (?)
The problem i see is that they don't want it to become non-free, and i think
this is ok for this package, altough i think that ocaml could be more used if
it would become really non-free. lets start a discution with them about it, but
keep in mind that the opinion on releasing programs non-free is ok as long as
the package is not a big inovation, at least i read that, be it from the FSF or
RMS, i don't remember. And ocaml plays in the same area as most JVM stuff, and
they are smaller as most player there, so they need some protection.

> Regards,
> Fernando Sanchez

Ok, Fernando, which one of us package it then ? I am already debian developper,
so the package could go in nextly. i will also package mlgtk, an ocaml binding
to gtk+, but it is still a bit alpha software. Right now i am not maintaining
any other packages, and i am writhing my phd thesis on camlous stuff, so i will
need quite recent packages of it ...

if you do it, you could also add the mli2html patch, it is quite nice for doing
some documentation ...



Reply to: