From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFADBB84 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:46:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [128.93.8.195] (alceste.inria.fr [128.93.8.195]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k72CkrhO014990 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:46:53 +0200 Message-ID: <44D09EBD.9010605@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:46:53 +0200 From: Guillaume Rousse User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060618) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml support in autotools References: <44CE2C74.4070607@inria.fr> <20060801181500.fcc23a70.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <054b459f8307f928df4660099b19d65f@vistabella.de> In-Reply-To: <054b459f8307f928df4660099b19d65f@vistabella.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 44D09EBD.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; guillaume:01 guillaume:01 ocaml:01 lindig:01 ocaml:01 autoconf:01 autoconf:01 ocamlburg:01 librairies:01 flags:01 voluceau:01 rocquencourt:01 2006,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Christian Lindig wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >> I'd like to have ocaml support in autotools (autoconf + automake), > > Having a ./configure is very convenient for developers and users alike. > Hoever, it does not have to be generated from Autoconf. The OCaml > distribution uses manually written shell scripts, I am using a Perl > script (since Perl is basically always available). You can take a look > here: > > https://trac.vistabella.de/ocamlburg/browser/trunk/configure > > I found it much easier to implement the checks that I need in my own > little Perl script rather than relying on Autotools. You're perfectly right, after all only the result really matters from a user point of view. However, from my own experience, people attempting to implement by themselves a build system, instead of using/contributing to an existing one (autotools is the not the only one) generally only consider their own constraints, or the one they are aware of, and generaly fails in specific scenarios, most notably packaging (properly tagged dynamic librairies, parallel build, cross-compilation, specific optimisation flags, fake root installation, etc...). Your own private wheel may be more convenient for you, but it is generally less robust than one routinely used by hundreds of people. Of course, this is recurrente debate :) -- Guillaume Rousse Projet Estime, INRIA Domaine de Voluceau Rocquencourt - B.P. 105 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex - France