Re: [Caml-list] Build-/Installation-Tools - not enogh of them?

[Yawar Amin <yawar.amin@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9658 bytes --]

Yes, opam should be easy to install. And in my experience it is; the
process usually goes as described in http://ocaml.org/docs/install.html#OPAM
(install with your system package manager). After that you should be a
couple of commands away from a working compiler.

Realistically, today, system ocaml compiler + make is a corner case in
OCaml development/distribution and shouldn't take precedence over a
standardized developer workflow with opam.

Regards,

Yawar



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:54 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Yawar Amin wrote:
>
> > But you still need an OCaml compiler, right? Are you not using opam to
> get
> > it? If you are, you already have opam. If you're not ... you will have a
> > tougher time than you need to :-) opam is the recommended installation
> > method by the OCaml team: http://ocaml.org/docs/install.html
>
> Personally, I was in the end forced to install opam.  But I don't want to
> force my users to install it (to figure out how to get it to work, I had
> to contact a member of Gallium - and my users don't have that
> opportunity).  I would prefer that they can just use the ocaml that comes
> with their system package manager.
>
> Since opam is the recommended method of installation, couldn't there at
> least be provided understandable instructions?  That really seems like a
> tougher time than what is necessary.
>
> julia
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yawar
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:34 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Yawar Amin wrote:
> >
> >       > Hi Julia, I agree that we need to simplify the life of the
> >       user. But that's
> >       > the developer's job, not the language toolchain. Users should
> >       not need to
> >       > know or care about OCaml (ideally), they should download and
> >       run binary
> >       > packages or install them through their operating system
> >       package manager.
> >       > Since it's not possible for many projects to provide all
> >       possible system
> >       > binaries to users, the fallback should be for the user to
> >       build the package
> >       > with clear instructions that they'll need to install opam and
> >       then
> >       > `opam build` (e.g.).
> >
> >       Like the original poster, I would very much prefer something
> >       based on
> >       make.
> >
> >       julia
> >
> >       >
> >       > Regards,
> >       >
> >       > Yawar
> >       >
> >       > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:59 AM Julia Lawall
> >       <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >       On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Yawar Amin wrote:
> >       >
> >       >       > If anyone would like to chime in and say that OCaml
> >       build and
> >       >       packaging
> >       >       > system is not that complicated, I would recommend
> >       first
> >       >       looking
> >       >       >
> >       at https://github.com/rizo/awesome-ocaml#package-management
> >       >       . IMHO we need
> >       >       > to seriously look at consolidating efforts around OPAM
> >       for
> >       >       package
> >       >       > management, packaging, building, testing and running.
> >       All the
> >       >       serious
> >       >       > language-specific package managers do it, it's a
> >       proven
> >       >       strategy and it
> >       >       > simplifies life for the developer.
> >       >
> >       >       I find it odd that simplifying the life of the developer
> >       is the
> >       >       highest
> >       >       priority.  Doesn't one want to simplify the life of the
> >       user?
> >       >       Ideally the
> >       >       user who has never touched OCaml before in his life?
> >       >
> >       >       As a simple example, the web page for installing OCaml
> >       says that
> >       >       the
> >       >       recommended way to install ocaml is to install opam.
> >       There is a
> >       >       link to a
> >       >       page explaining how to install opam.  How should anyone
> >       even
> >       >       have
> >       >       confidence that they will end up with OCaml after
> >       following
> >       >       those
> >       >       instructions?  Even step 1 of the installation process
> >       leads the
> >       >       user to
> >       >       confusion.
> >       >
> >       >       julia
> >       >
> >       >       >
> >       >       > This could be a typical workflow:
> >       >       >
> >       >       > cd some-ocaml-proj
> >       >       > opam install # Switches compiler if necessary and
> >       installs and
> >       >       locally
> >       >       > caches package dependencies
> >       >       > opam build
> >       >       > opam run # Automatically builds if necessary
> >       >       > opam test # Ditto
> >       >       > opam package # Ditto; --upload option can immediately
> >       upload
> >       >       to opam
> >       >       > opam doc # Builds documentation with ocamldoc or
> >       whatever
> >       >       > opam login -u user -p password
> >       >       >
> >       >       > Regards,
> >       >       >
> >       >       > Yawar
> >       >       >
> >       >       > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:15 AM Oliver Bandel
> >       >       <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
> >       >       > wrote:
> >       >       >       Hello,
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       a while ago it looked like there were not enough
> >       build-
> >       >       and
> >       >       >       installation-tools
> >       >       >       for OCaml. I remember some discussions about
> >       that.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       Now it seems to me that there are a lot of them.
> >       >       >       So, developers can pick the one they know about.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       For all these tools there might be good reasons
> >       to use
> >       >       them, and
> >       >       >       those
> >       >       >       developers who looked at these tools and choose
> >       them for
> >       >       their
> >       >       >       projects, will
> >       >       >       know them well enough.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       The situation differs, if one wants to package
> >       the
> >       >       written
> >       >       >       software,
> >       >       >       and one needs to know many of those tools, just
> >       to
> >       >       compile the
> >       >       >       stuff.
> >       >       >       So, when one just wants to compile and install
> >       some
> >       >       software,
> >       >       >       just for that, it would take much effort to
> >       learn the
> >       >       different
> >       >       >       build-tools.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       So, packaging has become more complicated, even
> >       though
> >       >       for the
> >       >       >       developers
> >       >       >       these tools may save time.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       It would be nice if people who used one of the
> >       many new
> >       >       building
> >       >       >       tools
> >       >       >       could provide a Makefile that allows just to
> >       type
> >       >       >       "make" and "make install", instead of expecting
> >       everyone
> >       >       who
> >       >       >       wants to compile
> >       >       >       the software to first learn
> >       just-another-build-tool.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       Also it would be good, to mention early, which
> >       >       installation
> >       >       >       tools (make-dependencies)
> >       >       >       are in use, and too mention needed packages
> >       (opam or
> >       >       others) to
> >       >       >       just build the stuff.
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       Thanks and regards,
> >       >       >         Oliver Bandel
> >       >       >
> >       >       >       --
> >       >       >       Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management
> >       and
> >       >       archives:
> >       >       >       https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> >       >       >       https://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
> >       >       >       Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
> >       >       >       Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> >       >       >
> >       >       >
> >       >       >
> >       >
> >       >       --
> >       >       Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and
> >       archives:
> >       >       https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> >       >       https://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
> >       >       Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
> >       >       Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >
> >       --
> >       Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> >       https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> >       https://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
> >       Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
> >       Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> https://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
> Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

-- 
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list https://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15183 bytes --]