On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:38:08AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> Ok, then my opinion is that this analysis misses the point.
> 
> We can do both. First hack together any crappy code that works,
> then make something elegant -- using the crappy code to help
> bootstrap the effort.
> 
> How do we do this? Well, one thing must NOT be crappy,
> even for the crappy code -- and that is the specification.
> Writing a package manager isn't the problem, IMHO. 
> The problem is defining what a package IS, where the pieces go,
> and how dependencies are stated.. etc etc.

This is essentially the goal of the GODIVA project (formerly GODOR) that
Owen Gunden and i are working on:  We're grafting a sensible specification
onto the frontend of GODI so that it's easier for developers to make
packages.  In the future, this specification could stay around if some
other underlying backend technology supplanted GODI, and all that would
require updating would be the backend of GODIVA.

A (very!) preliminary release of GODIVA is available as the GODI package
called godor.  In a few days, Owen and i will be packaging up a new release
incorporating the ideas from this paper:

    http://projects.phauna.org/godiva/papers/godiva.ps
    http://projects.phauna.org/godiva/papers/godiva.pdf

(And this time, "a few days" really means "a few days" -- we have a hard
(academic) deadline to meet!)

More information is available on the GODIVA website (but the paper is more
up-to-date):

    http://projects.phauna.org/godiva/

cheers,
William

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