Re: [camlidl
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:38:44PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:11:07PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > Do you think it would be useful to package camlidl? Licence is
> > QPL+LGPL, hence no problem.
>
> I think that is surely useful.
>
> Anyway we have to choice between 1) packaging camlidl as a standalone
> package and 2) embed it in the ocaml package.
No, i will not go with embedding anything in the ocaml package, the ocaml
package is as distributed upstream and should stay so. Also this is the wish
of upstream also.
It could be a good candidate for the ocaml-tools or whatever package though.
> Valid reason to choice 1) it is not to harden the work of Sven, another
Thanks, ...
> one is that camlidl as a lot of different kind of documentation that can
> be split in a package like camlidl-doc (maybe we can do the same if we
> choice 2) but is really inelegant ..).
>
> Valid reason to choice 2) is that camlidl per se is very little and
> strictly related to the compiler, unlike other libraries or tools.
>
> Definitely I will prefer 1) also splitting camlidl and camlidl-doc (i.e.
> html doc in camlidl and ps, pdf doc in camlidl-doc).
you could have a source package and various binary packages.
> Opinions?
> Sven, what do you think about embedding camlidl in the ocaml package?
I will not do it.
Well, unless you are very, very convincing, that is ...
Seriously though, i don't think upstream will be happy if we did this, and
altough we may make what we want with the new licences, they advice is
important, i think.
Also i have bad experience with not shipping pure ocaml + bug fixes, but it
was with a patch to the compiler, not a standalone program.
Anyway, better put it in its own program, or in the ocaml-tool, ocaml-contrib,
ocaml-additional-libs or somethign such package.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: