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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 182627F75C for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:50:52 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of adrien@notk.org) identity=pra; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of adrien@notk.org designates 91.121.71.147 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@nautica.notk.org) identity=helo; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="postmaster@nautica.notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAAo9FFRbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABfgw2BKoJ8zXMBgQkWeIQEAQEEI1YQCxgCAgUTDgICDwUYRIhCpkyVSAEXgSyOIQcWgmI2gR0FnQcBlT+DYDsvgkoBAQE X-IPAS-Result: Ag4FAAo9FFRbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABfgw2BKoJ8zXMBgQkWeIQEAQEEI1YQCxgCAgUTDgICDwUYRIhCpkyVSAEXgSyOIQcWgmI2gR0FnQcBlT+DYDsvgkoBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,517,1406584800"; d="scan'208";a="94534511" Received: from nautica.notk.org ([91.121.71.147]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 13 Sep 2014 14:50:51 +0200 Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id B4F6DC009; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:50:50 +0200 From: Adrien Nader To: rixed@happyleptic.org Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20140913125050.GA30090@notk.org> References: <5410522E.3050207@inria.fr> <20140910161744.5a7eecd0@alcazar2> <5410A2F5.4070107@zoho.com> <20140913120106.GB9341@pim.happyleptic.org> <541436E1.5010704@zoho.com> <20140913123719.GD9341@pim.happyleptic.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140913123719.GD9341@pim.happyleptic.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] One build system to rule them all? On Sat, Sep 13, 2014, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote: > -[ Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 02:21:53PM +0200, Drup ]---- > > >Please, define broken. > > Pick several: > > (...) > > I could go on, but I'm pretty you got the point. > > Yes, the point was that you tried to build things that were not supported (doc, > dynlink) on architectures the author didn't plan to support, or to do things > outside of building (installing, deinstalling) and many time it failed. > > I reckon that "make" is a presumptious name that may leads to wrong > expectations :-) > > Was it hard to fix the makefiles? We could go a bit further and say that assembly, brainfuck and malbolge are not proper languages for build system and that only the implementations are wrong. Sounds satiric? Maybe a bit bit. But I regularly hear the same for C and buffer overflows: it's not the language, it's the code. Not wrong but... The point is that in any case, if you want to make your makefile from scratch, you're going to be missing some things. OCamlMakefile is a few thousands lines; you can be sure that you're going to be missing stuff in your 30 lines Makefile. And it is not a packager's role to rewrite build systems for features (there's already enough to do with bugs). There's a funny game though (at least I find it funny; people say it makes me sound bitter): you show a custom build system, I find practical issues with it. To be honest it's probably not a good thing to start on the ML. Also, Drup got things a bit wrong: the build system of the compiler uses makefiles and it works most of the time. As far as I know, people still get issues when building in parallel; less than before but it appears to not be reliable. The main issues with the compiler build system are: age, size, duplication between directories and windows/unix.