Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang
Thu Feb 23 10:30:25 CET 2006
On 2006-02-22 09:29, Fredrik Thulin wrote:
> I bet that when we talk about Erlang in this thread, we all mean the
> Ericsson Erlang/OTP though - not just any Erlang ;).
like perl, erlang is a single source solution.
however, we could be talking about erlang as it is installed. that is
possible to do in more than one way. my personal installation has the
proposed/potential/? new standard libraries.
> This is totally unrealistic. Do you think that people from every
> distribution packaging stuff will want to become developers in all the
> languages they package?
this does not apply to my suggestion. you can not have understood what i
meant. however, it is not an erlang issue and i will not expand.
> Bengt, it is rather clear to me that we have incompatible opinions in
> this matter. Without the intent of being condescending, I beleive that
> To be able to afford the effort, such small parts of the overall suite
> of packages can't require custom packaging methods. If we want Erlang
> applications to be available through the big distributions packaging
> systems, we must minimize the trouble the packagers have to go through,
it would probaly be a good thing for erlang if the developers could
publish something that could be built while insisting up as few specific
programs as reasonably possible.
it would also be a good thing if the build result could be tailored in
as many ways as reasonably possible.
i think these 2 wishes holds for all that build erlang.
the difference i see between ''packagers'' and ''end users'' seems to be
that packagers are more prone to insist upon beeing allowed to use their
own procedure/programs/tools. since the second wish imho is the more
important one i find this insistance strange.
More information about the erlang-questions