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

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5809 bytes --]



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