Re: ocaml, jocaml, ocamlduce, *?caml
On 0, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> For example, I doubt it would have been hard to port ocamlduce from
> 3.10.1 to 3.10.2. For sure the port from 3.10.0 to 3.10.1 is harder, but
> Alain (ocamlduce's upstream) has cared about binary compatibility with
> OCaml 3.10.0 in the very first place. It is then much likely he is
> interested in having binary compatibility with newer OCaml upstream
> releases. Helping him out when needed is likely to be a much more
> rewarding road than forking 600 binary packages.
>
Recently, I've mailed Alain to know how ocamlduce 3.x.y is produced. And
it was just like "volonteers to maintain (fork) ocamlduce are neeeeded".
He also said : "One day, ocamlduce 3.10.2 will be released ...". So we
won't have it soon (AFAICT).
Just an idea : As Alain won't add any functionality to ocamlduce in the
future, is it crazy to consider a fork ?
Concerning JoCaml, it can be helpful to know JoCaml team's plans.
> Cheers.
>
> [1] http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?waiting=ocaml
>
> --
> Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
> zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
> (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
> (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
--
Mehdi Dogguy
http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy/
Reply to: