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 GAA15344; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 06:53:06 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA15080 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 06:53:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay1.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g9F4r4D18358 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 06:53:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 27409 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 04:53:02 -0000 Received: from adsl-host-sf-228.apexworld.net (HELO checkerlap.d6.com) (66.114.212.228) by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 04:53:02 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 66.114.212.228 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021014214720.0320a448@mail.d6.com> X-Sender: checker@mail.d6.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:53:05 -0700 To: Sven LUTHER , Gerd Stolpmann From: Chris Hecker Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK with Ocaml 3.06 (fwd) Cc: Sven LUTHER , Pierre Weis , caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20021015044203.GA1016@iliana> References: <20021014224457.GM1002@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> <20021014181602.GA2620@iliana> <200210142038.WAA05623@pauillac.inria.fr> <20021014210719.GA3682@iliana> <20021014224457.GM1002@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >At least for the windows solution, i strongly think a binary >distribution mechanism is what is needed for the users and also would >save a lot of time and 'howto build' kind of questions on the mailing >lists. There is no reason not to do so, i am no windows expert, but >windows offer a stable set of libraries and other system component that >can be relied upon to install ocaml binary packages upon. This already >works for ocaml itself. Yes, binary distribution would work fine on windows. Bytecode binary distribution for most libraries should work fine on all platforms. I think at this point it's more important to do something small and get it going than it is to solve all possible package management problems. Even something that just allowed a standard way of getting a tar ball of source for a given package and for its dependencies would be better than nothing, and we could improve it as we went. The -pack option made this a lot simpler, because now libraries can be distributed as a single module. If we make some relatively simple standards for build targets I think we can start making progress. Of course, if something like apt would just work for us (on all platforms, source and binary), then that would be excellent and we should just start using it. Chris ------------------- 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