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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E646C7EEAF for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:43:51 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of wojciech.meyer@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.214.180; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="wojciech.meyer@gmail.com"; x-sender="wojciech.meyer@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of wojciech.meyer@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.214.180; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="wojciech.meyer@gmail.com"; x-sender="wojciech.meyer@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-ob0-f180.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.214.180; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="wojciech.meyer@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ob0-f180.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoYCAKG79lDRVda0jmdsb2JhbABFqxqSZAgWDgEBAQEJCwkJEgYjgh4BAQVAARsSCwEDDAYFCw0NISEBAREBBQEKEgYTEod0AQMPDJp8jDOCe4UJChknAwpZhx8BBQyLfIUwA5Q2gVaBHIobgzEWKYQX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,479,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="168671643" Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 16 Jan 2013 15:43:50 +0100 Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wd20so1436271obb.11 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:43:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1cH3mZIzRWe3Mrfm2kMVzinm3DjfG14OVwftp+1pkXA=; b=R/nGMQ2oViPzriO+ZXX2wUhVEl3av0EUuM0NBlaeKejXDX9zAiP2I817ZP3G47t326 FyJLgAxjNFpCvP7/h5xdLVmU7WmBM8M5w7QYd7Q9KECD+LlNGaAr8l8x5op5XWJHUtOO wFetIVduHIPqIqYXhONXTRYauqMyymjYIhnp7DJtxMLxKURb+ShsekjOaoGsrKhrIafx G/j19oTIe2upi06qzQScGUEd4e8N7MGxW7sKy/IQA3nuveWPt3nu8VVDdt7KrLhPIYmY JWjKJspVLEsAuXMcfWhR2O+OCiDfuHzxHr/rYgRMYFLL+kpRGo1yMcV5YuE6iR6NXBb4 t+CQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.32.147 with SMTP id j19mr1005033oei.68.1358347429676; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:43:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.221.71 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:43:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <6833F17C-B642-4ED9-8C8F-2665A9742845@ocamlpro.com> <3764589D-EC12-4CD5-A76F-A009BE2DDE8E@ocamlpro.com> <3587ADE7-1423-4AB0-B510-DD55092E506D@recoil.org> <20130115194504.GA6280@voyager> <6AFFCDD6-A8C3-4351-A506-F13D930CF972@recoil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:43:49 +0000 Message-ID: From: Wojciech Meyer To: Gabriel Scherer Cc: Anil Madhavapeddy , Mirage List , OCaml mailing-list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] beta-release of OPAM Then during the bootstrap process we should be probably specifing explicitly the tool via command line, not relying on a fragile path resolution. The plan is however is to stop bootstrapping ocamlbuild at some point soon as it brings minimal benefit for the cost of the very complicated scripts. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote: > I suppose that the tool may want to use a different way of finding the > OCaml executables during the OCaml, then ocamlbuild, bootstrap > process. > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Wojciech Meyer > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: >>> Thanks for the quick fix! Looking at the patch, the problem >>> seems to be that ocamlbuild distinguishes between built-in tools >>> (presumably the ocaml toolchain binaries), and external tools. >>> >>> Is there any reason why ocamlbuild shouldn't just unconditionally >>> search the PATH for the compiler tools as well? It's very confusing >>> to have it override some binaries and not others. >> >> Yes, this area appears to me a bit hairy and over engineered. I see no >> real benefit of having such complex logic there too instead of using >> just PATH, but let me figure out if we can do it. >> However, I'm sure these changes must be there for some reason, I will >> ping Nicolas with the query today. >> >> -Wojciech >> >> -- >> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list >> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners >> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs