Re: [Caml-list] which ocaml build system

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Martin DeMello wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Marek Kubica <marek@xivilization.net> 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.
> >
> > I suppose this advice used to be good, but today maybe not as much
> > anymore.
> 
> I have an old (and fairly small) project that I've tried at least
> thrice to migrate off OcamlMakefile to something more
> modern/ocaml-specific, and failed each time (after spending 1-2
> evenings on it). I'll give it another go and report back on my
> experience, but at least historically OCamlMakefile was the easiest
> thing to get up and running.
> 
> You can see the pretty simple makefile here:
> https://github.com/martindemello/varix/blob/master/makefile - I can't
> remember exactly what difficulties I had with ocamlbuild and omake
> now.
> 
> martin

I vote for oasis. Its kind of a meta build system in that it then
generates you a Makefile, configure, setup.ml, myocamlbuild.ml (in my
case) and _tags to do the actual building.

It can build libraries, packed and not packed, binaries and test
suites with verry little input. It generates META files for libs and
handles build dependencies on other libs or libs from part of the same
source. The generated files can also be extended in case you need
something oasis doesn't know about. Never had the need for that yet.

MfG
	Goswin