From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16FF37FACD for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:14:24 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of r.3@libertysurf.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=212.27.42.6; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-sender="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of r.3@libertysurf.fr) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.27.42.6; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-sender="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@smtp6-g21.free.fr) identity=helo; client-ip=212.27.42.6; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@smtp6-g21.free.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AscBAPDyG1TUGyoGnGdsb2JhbABggkeBGVcBA4J9xHaBa4dNAYECFgERAQEBAQEGDQkJFCqEBAIEI00kBCUZAlmIWwmcXo80llePQzsWgmKBUwWWBYhnl0g7LwEBgUaBAgEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: AscBAPDyG1TUGyoGnGdsb2JhbABggkeBGVcBA4J9xHaBa4dNAYECFgERAQEBAQEGDQkJFCqEBAIEI00kBCUZAlmIWwmcXo80llePQzsWgmKBUwWWBYhnl0g7LwEBgUaBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,553,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="96585928" Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.6]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 19 Sep 2014 11:14:23 +0200 Received: from zimbra27-e5.priv.proxad.net (unknown [172.20.243.177]) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFEB82323 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:14:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:14:23 +0200 (CEST) From: r.3@libertysurf.fr To: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <1839435586.73559263.1411118063407.JavaMail.root@zimbra27-e5.priv.proxad.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_73559260_1407929568.1411118063406" X-Originating-IP: [172.16.79.17, 143.196.127.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0-GA2598 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/7.2.0-GA2598) X-Authenticated-User: r.3@libertysurf.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] One build system to rule them all? ------=_Part_73559260_1407929568.1411118063406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Some time ago I set up a cross tool chain from linux to windows. The project was using lablgtk2, camlimages, xml-light, lablgl and cairo. None of these packages were ready for cross-compilation, and I had to patch them. My experience : Makefile (small ones) : was ok oasis (for my own packages) : was not possible to cross-compile ocamlbuild through Makefiles (for my own packages) : ok autotools + ocaml-autoconf + Makefiles (lablgtk2, cairo) : my preferred oMake (camlimages) : seemed obscure to me, and did not succeeded in patching it. In the end, I reverted to a previous version of camlimages using autotools + ocaml-autoconf + Makefiles In the end, to my point of view, I found ocamlbuild to be nice for small to medium ocaml projects, though documentation was bad. Then, when C sources were required with cross compilation, or for bigger projects, I found autotools to be nice. Finally, I also tend to think that the best tool is the one used by most people :-) Just to get fun, I designed two polls : "best tool" : http://vote.pollcode.com/55577581#sthash.7DIWIfiP.dpuf http://vote.pollcode.com/55577581 "most used tool" : http://vote.pollcode.com/114772714 William http://vote.pollcode.com/55577581#sthash.7DIWIfiP.dpuf ------=_Part_73559260_1407929568.1411118063406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello,

Some time ago I set up a cross tool chain from linux to windows. The project was using lablgtk2, camlimages, xml-light, lablgl and cairo. None of these packages were ready for cross-compilation, and I had to patch them.
My experience :
Makefile (small ones) : was ok
oasis (for my own packages) : was not possible to cross-compile
ocamlbuild through Makefiles (for my own packages) : ok
autotools + ocaml-autoconf + Makefiles (lablgtk2, cairo) : my preferred
oMake (camlimages) : seemed obscure to me, and did not succeeded in patching it. In the end, I reverted to a previous version of camlimages using autotools + ocaml-autoconf + Makefiles

In the end, to my point of view, I found ocamlbuild to be nice for small to medium ocaml projects, though documentation was bad. Then, when C sources were required with cross compilation, or for bigger projects, I found autotools to be nice.

Finally, I also tend to think that the best tool is the one used by most people :-)

Just to get fun, I designed two polls :

"best tool" :
http://vote.pollcode.com/55577581

"most used tool" :
http://vote.pollcode.com/114772714

William

------=_Part_73559260_1407929568.1411118063406--