On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 06:14:13PM +1000, John Max Skaller wrote:
> It is pointless to consider this UNTIL there Ocaml team
> themselves decide on a packaging model.

I agree, but is it really that hard?

There seems to be an informal standard right now. eg. camlimages which
I've been wrestling with all week:

$OCAMLLIB/camlimages/ contains the code and names top-level module
names. To compile you just use ocamlc -I +camlimages ...

> This means some way of, for example, having
> a heirarchical naming model without the top
> level having to be a file containing all
> the others.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this.

> It means some way of finding package and components,
> and some way of installing them which doesn't require
> either clobbering the main distribution or adding
> a path component for every installed package.

Or this ... When adding a package, just create a subdirectory of lib/ ?

> I'm sure the team is aware of these issues, there has
> been a lot of pressure to solve the problem. However thankfully
> they seem not inclined to give a premature solution:
> once there is a standard solution we'll all be stuck
> with it for a long time.

Indeed this is true.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://freshmeat.net/users/rwmj
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - all your business data are belong to you.
'There is a joke about American engineers and French engineers. The
American team brings a prototype to the French team. The French team's
response is: "Well, it works fine in practice; but how will it hold up
in theory?"'

-------------------
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