Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang

Bengt Kleberg bengt.kleberg@REDACTED
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 

i agree.

> 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 mailing list