Re: [Caml-list] Request: Windows installers

[skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1766 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 20:26 -0400, Christopher A. Watford wrote:
> On 8/31/05, skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > I have a small request for the Ocaml Windows installers:
> > 
> > There are TWO Windows based Ocaml ports: MinGW and Win32 native
> > plus the Cygwin port.
> > 
> > Please could the builders of these packages
> > distinguish them??


> I'll fix that. 

Great! Thanks. Only a small thing: not many people will have
multiple Camel's installed, but some Felix developers will,
at least whilst we're trying to get all the different build
configurations to work ;(

> > I have, and need, all three versions of Ocaml installed,
> > and it is all very confusing, both MingW and native ports
> > think they own the world and use the same OCAMLLIB variable,
> > and also both expect themselves to be first in the PATH.
> 
> Personally MingW should come second to MSVS. But I don't think your
> 'first in PATH' to be correct.

I'm not even sure why OCAMLLIB is set: the doco claims it isn't
needed for XP. Probably you're right about the PATH thing,
I'm not sure: how does bytecode find ocamlrun?

> > I don't quite understand why CL.EXE is required,
> > why isn't LINK.EXE good enough? Isn't everything
> > done via assembler?
> 
> CL is the primary on that 'toolchain'. I was unaware of being able to
> go around it.

Well, there is a linker, LINK.EXE .. and an assembler, ML.EXE,
so why would you need a C/C++ compiler if ocamlopt generates
assmebler only?

Anyhow thanks: it's only a minor thing .. but it is very
confusing, especially OCAMLLIB, since it even influences
the Cygwin version of Ocaml (and then can't find Pervasives)

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]