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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD5BF81799 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:42:02 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of marek@xivilization.net) identity=pra; client-ip=178.63.18.39; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="marek@xivilization.net"; x-sender="marek@xivilization.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of marek@xivilization.net designates 178.63.18.39 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=178.63.18.39; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="marek@xivilization.net"; x-sender="marek@xivilization.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@coaxial.xivilization.net) identity=helo; client-ip=178.63.18.39; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="marek@xivilization.net"; x-sender="postmaster@coaxial.xivilization.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowJAEKH7lGyPxIn/2dsb2JhbABbgwY1EINJvTEKgQkWdIIkAQEEASMdAQErDAEECwsaAgUhAgIPSBkbh28KpXZ0g04BBX6NEgaBKI44MwcWGIIvgSGXX4EqkCSDFA X-IPAS-Result: AowJAEKH7lGyPxIn/2dsb2JhbABbgwY1EINJvTEKgQkWdIIkAQEEASMdAQErDAEECwsaAgUhAgIPSBkbh28KpXZ0g04BBX6NEgaBKI44MwcWGIIvgSGXX4EqkCSDFA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,727,1367964000"; d="scan'208";a="22017315" Received: from coaxial.xivilization.net ([178.63.18.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 23 Jul 2013 15:42:02 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xivilization.net; s=xiv; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=ybp1PUaEe3opuhEzYT/VuFn31x6+kiGdcVflGWmNxzY=; b=O3cC8SxexXyrTKwEHujNubuwfcLQDeQH9xHGs/UVHTOpBWvP+5n+gCSRCFuRtfWVyGZE/ZE07J01C8TpE6luHRbDTm/xcYpxqvR7lJ7WPq/mtSyCi9n3penX1QMbMxM1; Received: from ppp-188-174-21-214.dynamic.mnet-online.de ([188.174.21.214] helo=localhost.localdomain) by coaxial.xivilization.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V1cqm-0006aD-0H; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:42:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:39:56 +0200 From: Marek Kubica To: r.3@libertysurf.fr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20130723153956.605104b3@xivilization.net> In-Reply-To: <1672419877.217810363.1374484053368.JavaMail.root@zimbra27-e5.priv.proxad.net> References: <51ECF4EB.1060301@libertysurf.fr> <1672419877.217810363.1374484053368.JavaMail.root@zimbra27-e5.priv.proxad.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Caml-list] which ocaml build system Hello William, I very much appreciate your effort to create more documetation for the ocaml.org site! On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:07:33 +0200 (CEST) r.3@libertysurf.fr wrote: > I would like to gather thoughts on that in the ocaml.org website, > because actually its advice is 'make + OcamlMakefile' and 'Omake', > and I am not sure it is the best advice.=20 I suppose this advice used to be good, but today maybe not as much anymore. > ocamlbuild because :=20 > official tool that comes with ocaml, very handy and powerful, quite > easy, clear _tags file that shows well dependencies, and support for > ocamlfind. I espetially like the feature that handles dependencies > properly and only rebuilds what is needed when rebuilding. Also, OASIS can directly create a _tags file, which makes it probably the easiest system to deploy. In my opinion, this works pretty decent even when extending OCaml with C modules. > I also tried Omake but really did not like it, as we have to learn a > full new "language" with many special instructions. Also, I did not > succeeded in patching an Omake project (caml-images) for cross > compilation. The complexity is maybe equivalent as with autotools, > but learning autotools is much more rewarding as it is a reference > build system for GNU builds in particular. Oasis looked interesting, > but was not able to cross compile, and I had more confidence in > autotools for multi platforms support.=20 Omake has a pretty nice feature to recompile the files automatically on changes, thus you have a workflow that does not feature explicit compilation. Very useful, since the OCaml compiler is reasonably fast. I wish other systems would adopt this. I often write shellscripts that do similar things with inotifywait, but an integrated solution would be great. I also agree that the Omake language is=E2=80=A6 odd. Maybe not more odd th= an Makefiles, but Makefiles are common and well understood, whereas Omake is kinda obscure. regards, Marek