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
fine.
>
> > 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 ...
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: