From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA09282; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:58:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA09265 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:58:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from calmail-cl.berkeley.edu (mailfarm.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.61.106]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3E6wFYM003926 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:58:16 +0200 Received: from [64.162.212.212] (HELO tallman.kefka.frap.net) by calmail-cl.berkeley.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with SMTP id 16420545; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:58:15 -0700 Received: by tallman.kefka.frap.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:57:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:57:25 -0700 From: Kenneth Knowles To: "Brandon J. Van Every" Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: GODI vs. Ocamake Message-ID: <20040414065725.GA25795@tallman.kefka.frap.net> References: <20040414.115245.31191001.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; knowles:99 caml-list:01 ocamake:01 2004:99 brandon:99 python:01 spawned:01 ocamake:01 autoconf:01 all-ocaml:01 cygwin:01 autoconf:01 automake:01 os's:01 cygwin:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 309 On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:14:53PM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > An OCaml-centric packaging tool should be written in OCaml. Nobody's > switching to OCaml out of their love for C and C++! If that means GODI > is unsuitable to task, that is unfortunate but reality is reality. > Other languages such as Python and Java have spawned their own build > tools. There's a lot more to the world than Make. > > So how is OCamake? Is it not the obvious place to begin? First: Due to the great variety of operating systems out there, I think autoconf, etc has it exactly right - separating one stage of the build to "adjust" to the system you are building on is a Good Idea. Second: I like the idea of OCamake... I wrote ocamlconf with similar things in mind (a strictly ocaml-centric build tool), but with only the intent of replacing the "configure" portion of a build. A combination with OCamake might prove fruitful for an all-ocaml build process. Third: Porting to Windows is a pain in the ass without cygwin. With just autoconf/automake, one can make a C program that installs and runs (yes, the build process is part of the install for _most_ OS's) on almost any unix, and cygwin. Making a special exception for Windows without cygwin isn't at the top of my TODO list, particularly since there's not even a pretense of meeting me halfway (for example, by adopting POSIX and providing a bourne shell). I want to supply the same thing for ocaml through ocamlconf. All it requires (to my knowledge) is ocaml, a bourne shell, and make (not restricted to gnu make, I think). Kenn ------------------- 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