From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72599BB84 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:58:25 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtkBACN/j0lRZ90xlGdsb2JhbACOFIYkAQEBAQkLCAkRA7kZhBoG X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,404,1231110000"; d="scan'208";a="22687935" Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.49]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2009 09:58:25 +0100 Received: from aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090209085824.MRAY7670.mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:58:24 +0000 Received: from romulus.metastack.com ([81.102.132.77]) by aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090209085758.PKQP2093.aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@romulus.metastack.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:57:58 +0000 Received: from Tenor ([172.16.0.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by romulus.metastack.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n198vsuq021952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:57:55 GMT From: "David Allsopp" To: "'Richard Jones'" , "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Mikkel_Fahn=F8e_J=F8rgensen'?=" Cc: "'David Rajchenbach-Teller'" , "'OCaml'" References: <1233936696.6216.65.camel@Blefuscu> <20090208172223.GB31948@annexia.org> In-Reply-To: <20090208172223.GB31948@annexia.org> Subject: RE: [Caml-list] [ANN] OCaml Batteries Included, alpha 3 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:57:51 -0000 Organization: MetaStack Solutions Ltd. Message-ID: <006401c98a94$7e2f45f0$7a8dd1d0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcmKEeGN6bBJSENQQc6PJwa4DJPAUQAgbB0A Content-Language: en-gb X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 81.102.132.74 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ZUKlUxtWsHkA:10 a=c0gsRgzRWrcA:10 a=FP58Ms26AAAA:8 a=ua7SUHkszGb_vBeIRGkA:9 a=0849ileEZ4dcIAmAG6PLPDImk3sA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 autoconf:01 ocaml:01 makefiles:01 dependencies:01 makefiles:01 o'reilly's:01 2009:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 gnu:03 volunteer:06 probably:07 similarly:08 On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 Richard Jones wrote: > For example, everyone loves to hate autoconf (me included), but in > actual fact you only have to write two files containing under 10 lines > of code in each, to make a complete build environment for an OCaml > program under autotools. This fact probably isn't obvious, because > nowhere is it documented. +1! And projects like GnuWin32[1] mean that it doesn't take too much extra work to support Windows builds within the same build framework. > Similarly, plain Makefiles are easy to do, including working > dependencies. Just needs to be documented. Would a line-by-line analysis of something comprehensive like OCamlMakefile be a good example for anyone wishing to see how OCaml building is expressed in make (I'm afraid I don't use it so can't really volunteer to do that - I get everything I need for writing Makefiles from the GNU info pages and O'Reilly's excellent "Managing projects with make" book) David [1] http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net