On 23 Jan 2019, at 13:03, Jö Fahlke <jor...@jorrit.de> wrote: > > Am Mi, 23. Jan 2019, 11:59:12 +0000 schrieb Anil Madhavapeddy: >> - the consensus on the libdune numeric library thread is that there >> is no current use of /usr/bin/dune, and it can coexist fine with >> the OCaml dune package as a result [2] > [...] >> [2] >> https://lists.dune-project.org/pipermail/dune-devel/2019-January/002427.html > > Sorry to intervene again, but I feel the state of discussion within Dune > (numerics) upstream is misrepresented here. While it looks currently like the > final statement will be "Dune (ocaml) can have /usr/bin/dune and the package > names", several of our core developers have not indicated their preference > yet. And one of those may well come up with a good enough argument to change > the mind of those who already responded. > > We usually assume people that don't repond don't care after about a week. And > we'd usually wait longer for issues such as this one which cannot be undone by > something as simple as a "revert". I'll try to ping the relevant people to > speed things up. And I (or one of the other core developers) will let you > know here (#919951) when our discussion can be considered to have concluded.
Dear Jö, My apologies — you raised this point in your previous reply as well. A more accurate statement from me would have been that the *current* consensus with Dune numerics is that there is no current use of /usr/bin/dune. It would of course be prudent to wait for as long as is needed for the discussion among your developers to conclude. regards, Anil