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