Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> 
> * For me the central repository should not contain the source themselves.
>   This was an error with the CDK: the distribution becomes huge, and
>   it is very difficult for the maintainers to track changes
>   by developpers (who do not necessarily want to work in that
>   repository, for evident practical reasons). Not speaking of
>   licensing problems.

I see two different points here.  One being the huge CDK distribution,
which could have been broken up into individual .tar.gz's to handle
dependency tracking.

This is distinct from the central repository not containing sources
themselves, which I disagree with for several reasons.

1) Authors moving, redesigning web sites, etc.  Each move or redesign
   would have require module authors to go to the central repository
   to update links.  If the author has a lot of modules, this may be
   time consuming.

2) I think for security purposes, it would be good to have validated,
   md5sum'ed and potentially signed sources on a central site.  I
   would worry if I just automatically download some package from
   somebody's own web site.  I'm trusting the security on everybody's
   system, not just one.

3) Archive of old versions.  Authors may delete or clean up their own
   older versions of modules.  The central repository could keep all
   old copies which may be useful for some people.

As a CPAN author, when I put a package up on CPAN, I don't have to
worry about it any more.  That's a nice feeling to have.  I've moved
my web site 3 times in the last several years and updating links in a
repository would have been additional unnecessary work.

Best,
Blair

-- 
Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com>
Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners