caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
@ 2008-03-12  4:57 Erick Tryzelaar
  2008-03-12  9:14 ` [Caml-list] " David Allsopp
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Erick Tryzelaar @ 2008-03-12  4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

After reading the ocamlbuild + findlib thread, it reminded me about
some of the concerns I have with ocamlbuild. It's a really cool
system, but there doesn't seem to be much public planning and
contribution to making it better. For instance, it seems like the
community is waiting for Nicolas Pouillard to add support for multiple
plugins instead of us working together to spec out and create it
ourselves.

Why is this? For me at least, I think some of it is that I see
ocamlbuild being intimately tied in with inria's ocaml compiler, and
inria has been reasonably quiet about future development and external
participation. So, unlike other projects, I've never really put that
much effort into submitting patches. Is there anything we can do to
change this?

There are a couple things that I've long thought would be great to
have in ocamlbuild:

- I love that ocamlbuild is bundled with ocaml as then it's one less
dependency for someone building an ocaml package, but I don't like how
it then ties it's release to ocaml releases. First, since new versions
of ocaml aren't really publicly planned, it's hard to know when a
feature might be added to ocamlbuild. Second, we can't use ocamlbuild
to build a system if the system compiler isn't 3.10. I don't think
ocamlbuild actually uses anything from 3.10. So, it would be nice if
there was also a separate release from ocaml that we could install
along side of an older ocaml install.

- Now, in order to use it along side an older install, you can't
actually use a myocamlbuild.ml file as you'd have conflicting versions
of libraries. So, beyond what you can do with just the current _tags
file, it'd be also great if we could add support for some of the more
common features you need to go to myocamlbuild.ml right now. For
instance, you have to declare a library through "ocaml_lib". Could we
extend the _tags file support something like:

<foo.cma>: use_bar
ocaml, library, byte, use_foo: foo.cma
ocaml, library, byte, use_bar: bar.cma, external, dir('bar')

With this and other similar extensions, we wouldn't have to go to
myocamlbuild as much. I don't think _tags should grow into a full
language, but I think we could cover more common cases with it.

- A way for the community to add support for other languages. It may
not make sense to code in the OCaml tree support for things like Java
or the QT library. It also might not really be appropriate to be done
through OSR either.

- ocamlbuild currently can't run on windows's cmd.exe, which is a
shame. This bug report suggests that it's not planned on changing
either:

http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4388

I know that other languages like python are able to work cross
platformly with cmd.exe (such as my custom python build system for
felix), so for at least my purposes it works fine. In my case I'd be
okay with accepting the limitations of cmd.exe by avoiding doing any
fancy shell scripts, or pushing that in smart wrappers to ocamlbuild.
Furthermore, you could just skip the shell altogether and either
fork-exec on linux or runProcess on windows.


There's more I could add, but I hope this can start a conversation
about this. What do the rest of you think?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* RE: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  4:57 what's in the future for ocamlbuild? Erick Tryzelaar
@ 2008-03-12  9:14 ` David Allsopp
  2008-03-12 15:08   ` Nicolas Pouillard
  2008-03-12 17:16   ` Erick Tryzelaar
  2008-03-12  9:31 ` Sylvain Le Gall
  2008-03-12 15:24 ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: David Allsopp @ 2008-03-12  9:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: OCaml List

Having only just made the shift to OCaml 3.10, I haven't tried using
ocamlbuild yet for anything of my own so I'm interested in the
incompatibility with Windows listed below.

When you say that it doesn't work with cmd.exe, do you mean that bash simply
needs to be in the PATH so that ocamlbuild can execute commands? The Win32
port of make has the same requirement for sh.exe - I can't see how that's a
show-stopper for OCaml on Windows?

For my build (MinGW+Cygwin) I don't have Cygwin's bin folder in %PATH%
(because it interferes with the native Win32 ports of the UNIX commands) but
have C:\Dev\OCaml\bin instead. In that folder, apart from all OCaml's
binaries, I place copies of Cygwin's gcc.exe, as.exe, ar.exe, ranlib.exe and
dlltool.exe (with Cygwin DLLs copied to system32) to allow ocamlopt to work.
I'd see no problem with adding bash.exe to allow ocamlbuild to work too.

AFAIK ocamlbuild uses the new camlp4 so, while not impossible, back-porting
it to work with <= 3.09 is at best non-trivial?


David


-----Original Message-----
From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr
[mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Erick Tryzelaar
Sent: 12 March 2008 04:57
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?

After reading the ocamlbuild + findlib thread, it reminded me about
some of the concerns I have with ocamlbuild. It's a really cool
system, but there doesn't seem to be much public planning and
contribution to making it better. For instance, it seems like the
community is waiting for Nicolas Pouillard to add support for multiple
plugins instead of us working together to spec out and create it
ourselves.

Why is this? For me at least, I think some of it is that I see
ocamlbuild being intimately tied in with inria's ocaml compiler, and
inria has been reasonably quiet about future development and external
participation. So, unlike other projects, I've never really put that
much effort into submitting patches. Is there anything we can do to
change this?

There are a couple things that I've long thought would be great to
have in ocamlbuild:

- I love that ocamlbuild is bundled with ocaml as then it's one less
dependency for someone building an ocaml package, but I don't like how
it then ties it's release to ocaml releases. First, since new versions
of ocaml aren't really publicly planned, it's hard to know when a
feature might be added to ocamlbuild. Second, we can't use ocamlbuild
to build a system if the system compiler isn't 3.10. I don't think
ocamlbuild actually uses anything from 3.10. So, it would be nice if
there was also a separate release from ocaml that we could install
along side of an older ocaml install.

- Now, in order to use it along side an older install, you can't
actually use a myocamlbuild.ml file as you'd have conflicting versions
of libraries. So, beyond what you can do with just the current _tags
file, it'd be also great if we could add support for some of the more
common features you need to go to myocamlbuild.ml right now. For
instance, you have to declare a library through "ocaml_lib". Could we
extend the _tags file support something like:

<foo.cma>: use_bar
ocaml, library, byte, use_foo: foo.cma
ocaml, library, byte, use_bar: bar.cma, external, dir('bar')

With this and other similar extensions, we wouldn't have to go to
myocamlbuild as much. I don't think _tags should grow into a full
language, but I think we could cover more common cases with it.

- A way for the community to add support for other languages. It may
not make sense to code in the OCaml tree support for things like Java
or the QT library. It also might not really be appropriate to be done
through OSR either.

- ocamlbuild currently can't run on windows's cmd.exe, which is a
shame. This bug report suggests that it's not planned on changing
either:

http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4388

I know that other languages like python are able to work cross
platformly with cmd.exe (such as my custom python build system for
felix), so for at least my purposes it works fine. In my case I'd be
okay with accepting the limitations of cmd.exe by avoiding doing any
fancy shell scripts, or pushing that in smart wrappers to ocamlbuild.
Furthermore, you could just skip the shell altogether and either
fork-exec on linux or runProcess on windows.


There's more I could add, but I hope this can start a conversation
about this. What do the rest of you think?

_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  4:57 what's in the future for ocamlbuild? Erick Tryzelaar
  2008-03-12  9:14 ` [Caml-list] " David Allsopp
@ 2008-03-12  9:31 ` Sylvain Le Gall
  2008-03-12 11:59   ` [Caml-list] " Lionel Elie Mamane
  2008-03-12 15:11   ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
  2008-03-12 15:24 ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sylvain Le Gall @ 2008-03-12  9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

Hello,

On 12-03-2008, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> - I love that ocamlbuild is bundled with ocaml as then it's one less
> dependency for someone building an ocaml package, but I don't like how
> it then ties it's release to ocaml releases. First, since new versions
> of ocaml aren't really publicly planned, it's hard to know when a
> feature might be added to ocamlbuild. Second, we can't use ocamlbuild
> to build a system if the system compiler isn't 3.10. I don't think
> ocamlbuild actually uses anything from 3.10. So, it would be nice if
> there was also a separate release from ocaml that we could install
> along side of an older ocaml install.
>

Indeed, i would have prefer to have ocamlbuild outside ocaml compiler
package. The reason for ocamlbuild in OCaml is to solve the complex
scheme to build camlp4 (as far as i can remember). This is unfortunate,
but we can't blame INRIA to build a tool and test it against its more
complex compilation scheme.

> - A way for the community to add support for other languages. It may
> not make sense to code in the OCaml tree support for things like Java
> or the QT library. It also might not really be appropriate to be done
> through OSR either.
>
> - ocamlbuild currently can't run on windows's cmd.exe, which is a
> shame. This bug report suggests that it's not planned on changing
> either:
>
> http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4388
>

I don't think INRIA team are against accepting your patches, if it fits
correctly in OCaml. Most of the time, the first step is to provide a
patch... If you have the time to correct this problem on your own, i
think INRIA team will happily integrate your patch.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  9:31 ` Sylvain Le Gall
@ 2008-03-12 11:59   ` Lionel Elie Mamane
  2008-03-12 12:05     ` Vincent Hanquez
  2008-03-12 15:11   ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lionel Elie Mamane @ 2008-03-12 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:36AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:

> I don't think INRIA team are against accepting your patches, if it
> fits correctly in OCaml.

I was under the impression that they had a policy to keep the wole
copyright under INRIA hands, so that Caml consortium members could get
OCaml BSD licenses, and INRIA can do whatever it wishes in the future.

That's rather contrary to accepting patches without paperwork
(copyright assignment and all that).

-- 
Lionel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12 11:59   ` [Caml-list] " Lionel Elie Mamane
@ 2008-03-12 12:05     ` Vincent Hanquez
  2008-03-12 14:22       ` Sylvain Le Gall
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Vincent Hanquez @ 2008-03-12 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lionel Elie Mamane, caml-list

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:59:40PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:36AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> 
> > I don't think INRIA team are against accepting your patches, if it
> > fits correctly in OCaml.
> 
> I was under the impression that they had a policy to keep the wole
> copyright under INRIA hands, so that Caml consortium members could get
> OCaml BSD licenses, and INRIA can do whatever it wishes in the future.
> 
> That's rather contrary to accepting patches without paperwork
> (copyright assignment and all that).

I don't believe INRIA accepts copyright assignment;
rationale is, AFAIR, that it's might not be legal in France.

-- 
Vincent.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12 12:05     ` Vincent Hanquez
@ 2008-03-12 14:22       ` Sylvain Le Gall
  2008-03-12 14:38         ` [Caml-list] " Vincent Hanquez
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sylvain Le Gall @ 2008-03-12 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

On 12-03-2008, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:59:40PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:36AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> 
>> > I don't think INRIA team are against accepting your patches, if it
>> > fits correctly in OCaml.
>> 
>> I was under the impression that they had a policy to keep the wole
>> copyright under INRIA hands, so that Caml consortium members could get
>> OCaml BSD licenses, and INRIA can do whatever it wishes in the future.
>> 
>> That's rather contrary to accepting patches without paperwork
>> (copyright assignment and all that).
>
> I don't believe INRIA accepts copyright assignment;
> rationale is, AFAIR, that it's might not be legal in France.
>

Most of the GPL stuff are copyright FSF, which is indeed not legal in
France. Following what you say, almost the full GNU tools suite is not
legal in France (hopefully, lawyer have other things to do...)

But, you can still provide a patch! If there is something that is
acceptable regarding INRIA licence, it is patch... Maybe it will only be
included as a patch, in a contrib directory...

But anyway, lets stop right now this discussion, i won't enter in the
usual "licence" flameware about OCaml. The first step to have a problem
is to have a patch that cause a problem. When there will be a patch, or
even better, a lot of patches, maybe INRIA will reconsider its position.
For sure, if there is a lot of discussion about "what if there is a
patch and then..." and no patch, i really don't see any reason to change
anything.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12 14:22       ` Sylvain Le Gall
@ 2008-03-12 14:38         ` Vincent Hanquez
  2008-03-12 14:52           ` Martin Jambon
  2008-03-12 15:14           ` Sylvain Le Gall
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Vincent Hanquez @ 2008-03-12 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sylvain Le Gall; +Cc: caml-list

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:22:26PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> Most of the GPL stuff are copyright FSF, which is indeed not legal in
> France. Following what you say, almost the full GNU tools suite is not
> legal in France

what kind of logic is that ?
copyright assignment can be legal in others countries [1], that's
doesn't means the software becomes illegal when use in France.

btw not most GPL stuff are copyrighted FSF.
I certainly don't agree with this kind of pratice and it won't happen on
any software i'm "authoring".

[1]: maybe in france too IANAL, i just saw the argument about it a couple of
time on this same mailing list.

-- 
Vincent


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12 14:38         ` [Caml-list] " Vincent Hanquez
@ 2008-03-12 14:52           ` Martin Jambon
  2008-03-12 15:14           ` Sylvain Le Gall
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Martin Jambon @ 2008-03-12 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vincent Hanquez; +Cc: Sylvain Le Gall, caml-list

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Vincent Hanquez wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:22:26PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> Most of the GPL stuff are copyright FSF, which is indeed not legal in
>> France. Following what you say, almost the full GNU tools suite is not
>> legal in France
>
> what kind of logic is that ?
> copyright assignment can be legal in others countries [1], that's
> doesn't means the software becomes illegal when use in France.
>
> btw not most GPL stuff are copyrighted FSF.
> I certainly don't agree with this kind of pratice and it won't happen on
> any software i'm "authoring".
>
> [1]: maybe in france too IANAL, i just saw the argument about it a couple of
> time on this same mailing list.

Ahem. You're going off-topic...



Martin

--
http://wink.com/profile/mjambon
http://martin.jambon.free.fr


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* RE: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  9:14 ` [Caml-list] " David Allsopp
@ 2008-03-12 15:08   ` Nicolas Pouillard
  2008-03-12 17:16   ` Erick Tryzelaar
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2008-03-12 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Caml_mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4774 bytes --]

Excerpts from David Allsopp's message of Wed Mar 12 09:14:47 UTC 2008:

[...]

> AFAIK ocamlbuild uses the new camlp4 so, while not impossible, back-porting
> it to work with <= 3.09 is at best non-trivial?

No  ocamlbuild don't use camlp4. However camlp4 use ocamlbuild. And ocamlbuild
functions like Unix.isatty and Sys.is_directory. That appears in 3.10.

Moreover I don't have enough time to release/package ocamlbuild more often.

Hopefully  ocamlbuild plugins are a way to extend it and try new ideas without
waiting for a release.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr
> [mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Erick Tryzelaar
> Sent: 12 March 2008 04:57
> To: caml-list@inria.fr
> Subject: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
> 
> After reading the ocamlbuild + findlib thread, it reminded me about
> some of the concerns I have with ocamlbuild. It's a really cool
> system, but there doesn't seem to be much public planning and
> contribution to making it better. For instance, it seems like the
> community is waiting for Nicolas Pouillard to add support for multiple
> plugins instead of us working together to spec out and create it
> ourselves.
> 
> Why is this? For me at least, I think some of it is that I see
> ocamlbuild being intimately tied in with inria's ocaml compiler, and
> inria has been reasonably quiet about future development and external
> participation. So, unlike other projects, I've never really put that
> much effort into submitting patches. Is there anything we can do to
> change this?
> 
> There are a couple things that I've long thought would be great to
> have in ocamlbuild:
> 
> - I love that ocamlbuild is bundled with ocaml as then it's one less
> dependency for someone building an ocaml package, but I don't like how
> it then ties it's release to ocaml releases. First, since new versions
> of ocaml aren't really publicly planned, it's hard to know when a
> feature might be added to ocamlbuild. Second, we can't use ocamlbuild
> to build a system if the system compiler isn't 3.10. I don't think
> ocamlbuild actually uses anything from 3.10. So, it would be nice if
> there was also a separate release from ocaml that we could install
> along side of an older ocaml install.
> 
> - Now, in order to use it along side an older install, you can't
> actually use a myocamlbuild.ml file as you'd have conflicting versions
> of libraries. So, beyond what you can do with just the current _tags
> file, it'd be also great if we could add support for some of the more
> common features you need to go to myocamlbuild.ml right now. For
> instance, you have to declare a library through "ocaml_lib". Could we
> extend the _tags file support something like:
> 
> <foo.cma>: use_bar
> ocaml, library, byte, use_foo: foo.cma
> ocaml, library, byte, use_bar: bar.cma, external, dir('bar')
> 
> With this and other similar extensions, we wouldn't have to go to
> myocamlbuild as much. I don't think _tags should grow into a full
> language, but I think we could cover more common cases with it.
> 
> - A way for the community to add support for other languages. It may
> not make sense to code in the OCaml tree support for things like Java
> or the QT library. It also might not really be appropriate to be done
> through OSR either.
> 
> - ocamlbuild currently can't run on windows's cmd.exe, which is a
> shame. This bug report suggests that it's not planned on changing
> either:
> 
> http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4388
> 
> I know that other languages like python are able to work cross
> platformly with cmd.exe (such as my custom python build system for
> felix), so for at least my purposes it works fine. In my case I'd be
> okay with accepting the limitations of cmd.exe by avoiding doing any
> fancy shell scripts, or pushing that in smart wrappers to ocamlbuild.
> Furthermore, you could just skip the shell altogether and either
> fork-exec on linux or runProcess on windows.
> 
> 
> There's more I could add, but I hope this can start a conversation
> about this. What do the rest of you think?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  9:31 ` Sylvain Le Gall
  2008-03-12 11:59   ` [Caml-list] " Lionel Elie Mamane
@ 2008-03-12 15:11   ` Nicolas Pouillard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2008-03-12 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Caml_mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2092 bytes --]

Excerpts from Sylvain Le Gall's message of Wed Mar 12 10:31:36 +0100 2008:
> Hello,
Hello,

> On 12-03-2008, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >
> > - I love that ocamlbuild is bundled with ocaml as then it's one less
> > dependency for someone building an ocaml package, but I don't like how
> > it then ties it's release to ocaml releases. First, since new versions
> > of ocaml aren't really publicly planned, it's hard to know when a
> > feature might be added to ocamlbuild. Second, we can't use ocamlbuild
> > to build a system if the system compiler isn't 3.10. I don't think
> > ocamlbuild actually uses anything from 3.10. So, it would be nice if
> > there was also a separate release from ocaml that we could install
> > along side of an older ocaml install.
> >
> 
> Indeed, i would have prefer to have ocamlbuild outside ocaml compiler
> package. The reason for ocamlbuild in OCaml is to solve the complex
> scheme to build camlp4 (as far as i can remember). This is unfortunate,
> but we can't blame INRIA to build a tool and test it against its more
> complex compilation scheme.
> 
> > - A way for the community to add support for other languages. It may
> > not make sense to code in the OCaml tree support for things like Java
> > or the QT library. It also might not really be appropriate to be done
> > through OSR either.
> >
> > - ocamlbuild currently can't run on windows's cmd.exe, which is a
> > shame. This bug report suggests that it's not planned on changing
> > either:
> >
> > http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4388
> >
> 
> I don't think INRIA team are against accepting your patches, if it fits
> correctly in OCaml. Most of the time, the first step is to provide a
> patch... If you have the time to correct this problem on your own, i
> think INRIA team will happily integrate your patch.

Talking  for  my parts (camlp4 and ocamlbuild), patches are welcome. Of course
they  are  subject  to  be  rejected  if  they  don't  fits  our  requirements
(including that INRIA is the copyright holder).

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12 14:38         ` [Caml-list] " Vincent Hanquez
  2008-03-12 14:52           ` Martin Jambon
@ 2008-03-12 15:14           ` Sylvain Le Gall
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sylvain Le Gall @ 2008-03-12 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

On 12-03-2008, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:22:26PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> Most of the GPL stuff are copyright FSF, which is indeed not legal in
>> France. Following what you say, almost the full GNU tools suite is not
>> legal in France
>
> what kind of logic is that ?

Don't look for logic -- we are already talking about law which you can
take as "axiom" ;-)

Maybe, i don't have made a very "logic" sentence. It was just to say
something like "every piece of GNU software written by french people are
out-of-law". But i am not a lawyer, so only take this as "I think" or "I
have heard somewhere that". 

> copyright assignment can be legal in others countries [1], that's
> doesn't means the software becomes illegal when use in France.
>

In fact copyright assignement is legal in France, if you state every
author right you assign.

Let takes an example. Cecill is a french license that is good regarding
IP in France.

Cecill:
http://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2-fr.html

IP in France:
http://www.guideinformatique.com/fiche-droit_dauteur_sur_les_logiciels-721.htm

If you read carefully, you will see that "in french" some rights are
given (Art 5.1 of Cecill):
- "la reproduction permanente ou provisoire du Logiciel"
- "le droit de traduire, d'adapter, d'arranger ou d'apporter toute autre
  modification au Logiciel"
- "Le droit de distribution comporte notamment le droit de diffuser, de
  transmettre et de communiquer le Logiciel au public sur tout support
  et par tout moyen

And in IP law:
Droits patrimoniaux
# la reproduction permanente ou provisoire d'un logiciel
# la traduction, l'adaptation, l'arrangement 
...

Even if in the spirit the GPL doesn't prevent this, it is not written
exactly in the good term (remember, we are talking about law).

> btw not most GPL stuff are copyrighted FSF.

FSF encourages people using GPL to give away their copyright for a better
"defense" of OSS. I.e. if something goes wrong FSF has the right to
defend the case.

Extract from "Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors"
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/why-assign.html

"In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the
recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be
able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author
of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment,
and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership
claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all
the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most
effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can
completely rely."

But indeed, this is for FSF related project (i was talking about GNU
tools).

> I certainly don't agree with this kind of pratice and it won't happen on
> any software i'm "authoring".

Mine also -- even under GPL/LGPL, i keep the copyright. 

Well here is my little usual phrase: "this is the last post about this
topic" because this is Out-Of-Topic or has been discussed already too
long.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  4:57 what's in the future for ocamlbuild? Erick Tryzelaar
  2008-03-12  9:14 ` [Caml-list] " David Allsopp
  2008-03-12  9:31 ` Sylvain Le Gall
@ 2008-03-12 15:24 ` Nicolas Pouillard
  2008-03-12 17:06   ` Erick Tryzelaar
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2008-03-12 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Caml_mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3955 bytes --]

Excerpts from Erick Tryzelaar's message of Wed Mar 12 05:57:12 +0100 2008:
> After reading the ocamlbuild + findlib thread, it reminded me about
> some of the concerns I have with ocamlbuild. It's a really cool
> system, but there doesn't seem to be much public planning and
> contribution to making it better. For instance, it seems like the
> community is waiting for Nicolas Pouillard to add support for multiple
> plugins instead of us working together to spec out and create it
> ourselves.
> 
> Why is this? For me at least, I think some of it is that I see
> ocamlbuild being intimately tied in with inria's ocaml compiler, and
> inria has been reasonably quiet about future development and external
> participation. So, unlike other projects, I've never really put that
> much effort into submitting patches. Is there anything we can do to
> change this?
> 
> There are a couple things that I've long thought would be great to
> have in ocamlbuild:
> 
> - I love that ocamlbuild is bundled with ocaml as then it's one less
> dependency for someone building an ocaml package, but I don't like how
> it then ties it's release to ocaml releases. First, since new versions
> of ocaml aren't really publicly planned, it's hard to know when a
> feature might be added to ocamlbuild. Second, we can't use ocamlbuild
> to build a system if the system compiler isn't 3.10. I don't think
> ocamlbuild actually uses anything from 3.10. So, it would be nice if
> there was also a separate release from ocaml that we could install
> along side of an older ocaml install.

As in my previous mail, that's not planned to ship it apart.

> - Now, in order to use it along side an older install, you can't
> actually use a myocamlbuild.ml file as you'd have conflicting versions
> of libraries. So, beyond what you can do with just the current _tags
> file, it'd be also great if we could add support for some of the more
> common features you need to go to myocamlbuild.ml right now. For
> instance, you have to declare a library through "ocaml_lib". Could we
> extend the _tags file support something like:
> 
> <foo.cma>: use_bar
> ocaml, library, byte, use_foo: foo.cma
> ocaml, library, byte, use_bar: bar.cma, external, dir('bar')
> 
> With this and other similar extensions, we wouldn't have to go to
> myocamlbuild as much. I don't think _tags should grow into a full
> language, but I think we could cover more common cases with it.

The  _tags  file  is  for  tagging,  having  a way to specify dependencies and
libraries  would  be  cool,  but  I  want  to  avoid  the programming language
syndrome. It needs to be carefully designed.

> - A way for the community to add support for other languages. It may
> not make sense to code in the OCaml tree support for things like Java
> or the QT library. It also might not really be appropriate to be done
> through OSR either.

It  would  be  very  nice. Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen already worked for a better
C/C++  integration.  However  this  also  requires  multiple plugins, since we
don't  want  to  integrate  all  these  languages  in  the  default  state  of
ocamlbuild.

> - ocamlbuild currently can't run on windows's cmd.exe, which is a
> shame. This bug report suggests that it's not planned on changing
> either:
> 
> http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4388
> 
> I know that other languages like python are able to work cross
> platformly with cmd.exe (such as my custom python build system for
> felix), so for at least my purposes it works fine. In my case I'd be
> okay with accepting the limitations of cmd.exe by avoiding doing any
> fancy shell scripts, or pushing that in smart wrappers to ocamlbuild.
> Furthermore, you could just skip the shell altogether and either
> fork-exec on linux or runProcess on windows.

We  really lacks some windows experts for ocamlbuild and OCaml in general. The
specific problem of cmd.exe vs bash only one of them.

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12 15:24 ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
@ 2008-03-12 17:06   ` Erick Tryzelaar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Erick Tryzelaar @ 2008-03-12 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Pouillard; +Cc: Caml_mailing list

2008/3/12 Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com>:
>  As in my previous mail, that's not planned to ship it apart.

That's understandable, but too bad. Would changes in ocamlbuild be
enough to justify a new release for ocaml even if the rest of ocaml
doesn't change? Or would we have to wait for bug fix patches like for
3.10.1 and 3.10.2? Furthermore, since ocamlbuild is still pretty
young, what if we as a community decided to make a backwards
incompatible change to the api? Would that have to wait until 3.11 or
later?


>  The  _tags  file  is  for  tagging,  having  a way to specify dependencies and
>  libraries  would  be  cool,  but  I  want  to  avoid  the programming language
>  syndrome. It needs to be carefully designed.

I agree. I just wanted to throw the idea out there to express the
desire that if ocamlbuild becomes a general purpose builder, it should
be able to work in most situations without actually even having ocaml
installed.


>  It  would  be  very  nice. Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen already worked for a better
>  C/C++  integration.  However  this  also  requires  multiple plugins, since we
>  don't  want  to  integrate  all  these  languages  in  the  default  state  of
>  ocamlbuild.

Great. What was done and is it released already?

This, then, starts to run into the same kind of issues that the OSR
folks are trying to solve. How can we standardize future plugins so
that they're easy to install and use by everyone? I'm worried that
except for a couple small cases, most changes will need to be done
with an external plugin in order to keep the ocaml tree free from
clutter. For instance, a build farm could be made with ocamlnet, which
you might not even be legally allowed to pull into ocaml and
distribute under the Q License.


>  We  really lacks some windows experts for ocamlbuild and OCaml in general. The
>  specific problem of cmd.exe vs bash only one of them.

Certainly. But the ocamlbuild challenges might be easier to solve than
for the rest of ocaml. If I put in the time to work around the
cmd.exe/bash problem for ocamlbuild by exposing fork/exec or
runProcess and possibly more to the unix library, would the ocaml team
accept it? And even more, would I have to wait a couple months for
3.10.3 for all of my OSS projects that run on windows (and through
cmd.exe fine right now) to use it?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [Caml-list] what's in the future for ocamlbuild?
  2008-03-12  9:14 ` [Caml-list] " David Allsopp
  2008-03-12 15:08   ` Nicolas Pouillard
@ 2008-03-12 17:16   ` Erick Tryzelaar
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Erick Tryzelaar @ 2008-03-12 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Allsopp; +Cc: OCaml List

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:14 AM, David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com> wrote:
>  When you say that it doesn't work with cmd.exe, do you mean that bash simply
>  needs to be in the PATH so that ocamlbuild can execute commands? The Win32
>  port of make has the same requirement for sh.exe - I can't see how that's a
>  show-stopper for OCaml on Windows?

The problem I ran into with this is that the felix language supports
being built with visual studio, and the visual studio ocaml version.
This means that the end user doesn't need anything else to compile,
and our build system (is supposed to) be able to run in cmd.exe with
our custom python build system. In this setup we can't really justify
using ocamlbuild since our crusty build system is actually more
compatible. Now we could add a dependency on cygwin, but cygwin
implies so much more than just bash that it might not be worth
changing something that works (poorly) right now.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2008-03-12 17:16 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-03-12  4:57 what's in the future for ocamlbuild? Erick Tryzelaar
2008-03-12  9:14 ` [Caml-list] " David Allsopp
2008-03-12 15:08   ` Nicolas Pouillard
2008-03-12 17:16   ` Erick Tryzelaar
2008-03-12  9:31 ` Sylvain Le Gall
2008-03-12 11:59   ` [Caml-list] " Lionel Elie Mamane
2008-03-12 12:05     ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-03-12 14:22       ` Sylvain Le Gall
2008-03-12 14:38         ` [Caml-list] " Vincent Hanquez
2008-03-12 14:52           ` Martin Jambon
2008-03-12 15:14           ` Sylvain Le Gall
2008-03-12 15:11   ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
2008-03-12 15:24 ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Pouillard
2008-03-12 17:06   ` Erick Tryzelaar

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).