On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:42:20PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > > Would it be ok it the license was put in the client repository and printed
> > > with the code when the (for example) -l option is given ? (By default
> > > the complete license information would not be printed with the code, only
> > > the url where to find it.) This way the license is available but not
> > > always added to your file when you want to use an element of the repository
> > > in your code.
> > 
> > Imagine a guy who ocaml-get's a given bit of code on his laptops, and
> > then wants to work on it in a plane or somewhere else offline ?
> > 
> > He will then have no access ot the licence, which is not ok.
> > 
> > (But then, i have not looked at your work in detail, and may have missed
> > something).
> 
> In fact, I was thinking of the following algorithm:
> - the client does
>   caml-get update http://foo.bar/archive.cga
> - then caml-get retrieves the archive, and for each element, look at the
>   url of the license, retrieves it, and store it in the client repository,
>   making it available to the use even when he/she is offline.

It should either not download the archive or put a fat warning if the
licence is not retrievable, but i think this is already your intention.

> > The best would be to have, for each bit of source you can ocaml-get, a
> > link to a licence file, which may be common to many ocaml-gettable
> > sources, and which get downloaded only if it has not already, maybe with
> > a md5sum check to make sure it is indeed the same licence.
> 
> That could be one way to store it, indeed.

:)

> > Then, you can just have the licence tag or whatever refer to a file on
> > the client harddisk, and there will be no problem.
> > 
> > BTW, how does ocaml-get integrate (or not) with the debian packaging
> > effort ? Will it be possible to use it to install non-packaged stuff in
> > a debian policy friendly way or something like that ?
> 
> Caml-get is done to help the developer, by making use of *pieces* of
> code easier, thus not making his/her software depend on a library if it only
> uses one or two functions of this library for example. This can be seen
> as way to distribute a software which otherwise would depend on a
> hard-to-install or no-packaged software.
> 
> But if a software heavily uses a library, it should rather really depend on
> this lib (that is: link with it) rather than use caml-get to copy-paste
> all the library.
> 
> Does it answer your question ?

Well, i was thinking of some way of automatically or semi-automatically
transforming a bit of caml-getted source into a proper debian package.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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