From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pBEHRuqC010492
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:27:56 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkHAE3b6E7YDn+0X2dsb2JhbABEhQijWYJeHk+BcgEBBAEjTQgBBQsLGgIFEwMLAgIJAwIBAgExFBQIAYd2pUmRdIEvh0CCBIEWBIgynw0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,353,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="135421433"
Received: from ns.n0bu.com (HELO main.metaprl.org) ([216.14.127.180])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2011 18:27:50 +0100
Received: from hp.nogin.org (c-76-20-73-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.20.73.171])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by main.metaprl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16E8878D0033;
	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:27:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EE8DC93.1000806@metaprl.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:27:47 -0800
From: Aleksey Nogin <nogin@metaprl.org>
Organization: MetaPRL/Mojave Research Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20111109)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
CC: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>
References: <4EDE33A0.6070004@gmail.com>	 <CAFrFfuGcT4geLSKCC7MRzY_8PaP2fUuGJD33ewkEH=r+6a2fOQ@mail.gmail.com>	 <1323760512.9833.9.camel@samsung>	 <CAFrFfuH=JB8m_jwCZdMcdSCYp7G0dcX2Zxr5Ur1zDUb37vTX0g@mail.gmail.com>	 <4EE711FB.5020602@frisch.fr>	 <CAP5QFJnsannf42j+jzS4xTsc5HYKa9xXtcfyYOTZ4LYNHWedPw@mail.gmail.com>	 <4EE83C26.7090108@frisch.fr> <1323867161.7750.27.camel@samsung>
In-Reply-To: <1323867161.7750.27.camel@samsung>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions

On 14.12.2011 04:52, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:

> I don't think you will be able to convince everybody - at this point the
> issue becomes political in some sense: Do we want to give up our Unix
> habits just to support an OS we (often enough) do not like, and would
> only cover to get more love from the world?
> 
> There could be an alternative: The "busybox approach". We could develop
> a toolkit that covers all the Unix commands we need for the existing
> build scripts. It would include easy things like cp, mv etc., but also a
> classic "make" (medium difficulty, note that it could reuse the
> godi_make code), and especially a POSIX shell. The latter is a bit of
> work, but not too much. I'd guess the overall effort takes not more than
> 1-2 weeks if done by somebody how knows the semantics of the tools very
> well.
> 
> There are a number of advantages over Cygwin:
>  - No danger of running into licensing problems
>  - The Unix compatibility is only maintained for commands, but not on
>    the system call level (eaiser to use, less surprises, fewer deps,...)
>  - It would only be a small download, and easy to integrate into
>    installers

Note that to a degree, OMake already provides the ability to do
Unix-style things under Windows.

Aleksey