On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:18:14 Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> OCaml in Debian has a lot of problems. I have talked about openly
> during the meeting. You can find my slides on the wiki, if you want more
> information about it.
> http://wiki.cocan.org/events/europe/ocamlmeetingparis2008

Yes. Thanks for the link.

> In this case, i was talking about dealing with repository/metadata.
> Which is something about package management and not OCaml in Debian. I
> just suggest using a ftp repository and putting a VCS field in the
> metadata.

Sure. I don't see a clear preference for either myself.

> >> and don't let people going into endless discussion about Git being
> >> faster than Darcs -- but less useful than Hg.
> >
> > Debian have also failed to resolve this.
>
> I never participate to flameware. But i have seen many on Debian lists,
> and think it is a waste of time. Just like people on this list when they
> also go into flameware...

Flamewars may be a waste of time but I don't see that as a flamewar. The idea 
of using software written in Haskell (darcs) because OCaml has none and 
Haskell is a related language seems nice but several darcs users have said 
here that it is really broken and unusable. I've never used it myself but 
I've certainly heard that a lot elsewhere and few people use darcs anyway.

Given that many people want to use the vanilla OCaml distribution from INRIA 
but many other people want to use improved versions, I only ask that future 
work provide for both. If the distribution is to be source-based with 
automatic recompilation then this should be quite easy: we have two roots for 
the distribution, one providing INRIA's raw OCaml and the other providing a 
dressed up alternative that the community can develop.

Would everyone be happy with that?

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e