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 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 > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > > 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