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 8700ABBAF for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:03:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-sb.de (uni-sb.de [134.96.252.33]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k72E3jSv028557 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:03:51 +0200 Received: from mail.cs.uni-sb.de (mail.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.254.200]) by uni-sb.de (8.13.7/2006061600) with ESMTP id k72E3g0k005494; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:03:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.st.cs.uni-sb.de (goscinny.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.235.32]) by mail.cs.uni-sb.de (8.13.7/2006061600) with ESMTP id k72E3f0V028548; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:03:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [134.96.235.101] (jonagold.cs.uni-sb.de [134.96.235.101]) by mail.st.cs.uni-sb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7531BE18; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:03:41 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <44D09EBD.9010605@inria.fr> References: <44CE2C74.4070607@inria.fr> <20060801181500.fcc23a70.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <054b459f8307f928df4660099b19d65f@vistabella.de> <44D09EBD.9010605@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6118c175873335174f817fa0904086fe@vistabella.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr From: Christian Lindig Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml support in autotools Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:03:41 +0200 To: Guillaume Rousse X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 44D0B0C1.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; lindig:01 lindig:01 ocaml:01 guillaume:01 2006,:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 constraints:03 generally:03 shell:04 fails:05 implement:06 aug:06 break:07 configure:08 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 On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > 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 [..] I totally agree that building on the knowledge of Autotools would be better. But in my experience I have to write a lot of shell code in configure.in because the tests I require are not provided (or I can't find them). There is no guarantee that this code does not break in specific scenarios (but the chance of breaking is slimmer - I admit). -- Christian