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 IAA32071; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:35:21 +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 IAA31705 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:35:20 +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 i3F6ZIYM009376 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:35:18 +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 16940085; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:35:17 -0700 Received: by tallman.kefka.frap.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:26 -0700 From: Kenneth Knowles To: skaller Cc: Nicolas Cannasse , "Brandon J. Van Every" , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: GODI vs. Ocamake Message-ID: <20040415063426.GA24925@tallman.kefka.frap.net> References: <005e01c421f5$2dd45210$ef01a8c0@warp> <1081943666.20677.685.camel@pelican> <20040414164957.GA24089@tallman.kefka.frap.net> <1081991111.20677.877.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1081991111.20677.877.camel@pelican> 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 2004:99 knowles:99 ocamake:01 interscript:01 camlp:01 autoconf:01 glue:01 handles:01 makefile:02 makefile:02 complexity:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 366 On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:05:12AM +1000, skaller wrote: > On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 02:49, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > Just so I don't leave anyone out, I'd say both ocamake and OCamlMakefile handle > > (1) and (3) all at once. > > Yeah? How would they handle Interscript sources? > What about Camlp4? I never said they were perfect. I don't use them. However, I don't know of anything other than a custom-rolled Makefile that handles such things. Are you suggesting one? If so, I'm very interested, and I may have missed it in your previous messages. > By far the best way to handle this complexity is with > a SINGLE general purpose language. I'm still convinced that writing one build tool to rule them all is a Bad Idea. It is a fraction as much work to write a separate one for each language (setup.py, Makefile.PL, autoconf, ocamlconf), and glue them together when needed with a scripting language or Makefile. 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