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 670997F75C for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:55:23 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,499,1406584800"; d="scan'208";a="93969707" Received: from meleze.ens.fr (HELO [129.199.99.114]) ([129.199.99.114]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 10 Sep 2014 15:55:23 +0200 Message-ID: <5410584B.8090302@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:55:23 +0200 From: Francois Berenger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jacques-Pascal Deplaix , caml-list@inria.fr References: <5410522E.3050207@inria.fr> <541057C6.702@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <541057C6.702@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] One build system to rule them all? On 09/10/2014 03:53 PM, Jacques-Pascal Deplaix wrote: > Hi, > > I did know obuild but I forgot a fact about it: it doesn't use ocamlfind. > > As you took the defense of obuild, do you know why it doesn't use it ? I > think I know how it works for simple packages but how is it supposed to > work with packages which uses the linkopts field or even if the cma has > not the same name as the library itself ? Why not having used findlib > (for the speed declaimed in DESIGN.md) ? I don't know, I am just an obuild user, not a real contributor. > Did I missed something ? > > Cheers, > > On 09/10/2014 03:29 PM, Francois Berenger wrote: >> On 09/10/2014 02:49 PM, Yotam Barnoy wrote: >>> It appears to me that every couple of months we hear of someone >>> implementing yet another build system in ocaml. Given the success of >>> opam, I think it's clear that sometimes a monolithic solution, behind >>> which the entire community can organize, is the best solution -- >>> especially for infrastructure. Looking at haskell, having cabal as the >>> main build system has really helped them advance in terms of supporting >>> other platforms (such as windows), and since all community efforts in >>> this realm are focused on cabal, they can improve it rapidly. >>> >>> a. Is there any build system we can organize behind to crown as the >>> official build system? >>> b. What are the use-cases missing from specific build systems, that have >>> driven people to use other build systems? >>> c. To pick one possible candidate, if ocamlbuild were spun out of the >>> compiler, could it be enhanced to cover all the main use-cases so >>> (almost) everyone would be happy with it? >>> >>> It's just such a shame to see the ocaml community re-inventing the wheel >>> over and over again, each time with some limitation so that the next >>> person needs to do the same thing yet again. >> >> It is not a shame, it is a tradition in the ocaml community! :-D >> For example, almost each ocaml programmer that I know of have written >> a logger (me included, it's even in opam so that I can reinvent >> another wheel next time). >> >> More seriously, concerning build systems, we clearly have quite some >> choice on the OCaml shelf: >> - obuild >> - ocamlbuild >> - omake >> - oasis (which in fact uses ocamlbuild, don't forget that) >> - jenga >> - [...] >> >> My preffered is obuild (https://github.com/ocaml-obuild/obuild), >> for the terseness, readability and centralization of its build >> descriptions. I would love to see the user community of obuild grow, >> so that we can get rid of more bugs, be able to compile _any_ >> OCaml project with it and implement even more cool features >> (contributors are very welcome). >> >> I don't want a ring to rule them all, jut a ring that fits _my_ >> finger. ;) >> > -- Regards, Francois.