Re: [Caml-list] Alternative proposal: COAN

[Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:05:33PM +0100, Jean-Christophe Filliatre wrote:
> 
>  > I know i am repeating myself, but please consider adding the following
>  > points also :
> 
> Sorry, I forgot to comment on these points :
> 
>  >   o support the DESTDIR prefix to your install directory. distribution
>  >     need to install into different directories than the ones the
>  >     package will unpack into.
> 
> A  ./configure script  accepts a  --prefix option,  or  more precisely
> --libdir, --bindir,  etc, setting some  variables at the  beginning of
> the generated Makefile. Additionally,  it sets other variables such as
> OCAMLLIB for  the ocaml standard  library place, etc.  Overiding these
> variables when  compiling is possible  (make OCAMLLIB=... LIBDIR=...),
> and thus using DESTDIR does not need changing the Makefile at all.

Well, sure, that is ok if you use autoconf, but ./configure can be any
manner of selfmade shell script or whatever. Also many people prefere to
have a configure target in the makefile, which is ok with me.

And it is in these cases that DESTDIR need to be supported. Also the
point of it is to have a DESTDIR which you can change in the make
install, and which is different from the one you configure to.

>  >   o support separate compilation for bytecode and nativecode. I build
>  >     bytecode versions of my packages on my i386 box alongside the native
>  >     versions. The bytecode package is arch: all, and will be
>  >     installeable on every arch, including slower arches like m68k, where
>  >     building huge ocaml bytecode executables is a waste of time if it
>  >     can be done quicker on my box.
> 
> The configure.in  / Makefile.in I provide  on my web  page also tackle

Will have a look.

> this  issue. The  makefile actually  contains two  targets  "byte" and
> "opt"  for  bytecode  and  nativecode compilation.  The  "./configure"
> script   determines  automatically   if   nativecode  compilation   is
> supported, so that  "make" is doing the best  it can (always bytecode,
> and nativecode when available). But  "make byte" and "make opt" can be
> invoked  specifically, to  do one  particular  compilation. Similarly,
> "make install-byte" or "make install-opt" can be invoked specifically.

BTW, does make install-byte and make-install-opt install to the same
bynary name ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners