Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: config info
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: gurr@m...
Subject: Re: config info
> >  Hi, The installation of ocaml based applications might be
> > simplified if the standard "make install" copied the config lib and
> > the config/Makefile to the library location.  Or if this is messy,
> > how about a "make install-devel" that does the copying? Thanks for
> > considering this detail.
> Tcl/Tk does this, and I absolutely hate it.  First of all, the config
> file is text, 

The config lib is not text and could be extended to include all the
config/Makefile info.

> and in GNU-like environments it should go under the
> share tree, not under lib.  Second, and more important, it limits
> flexibility in the derived installations.  

I *need* inflexiblity.  The point of .cmi files is the inflexiblity
of consistency.  I need to use the same compiler etc that was used
to build ocaml.

> This is partly a
> "philosophical" issue (see the last sentence of this message), but
> also a practical one: any bug in the original build is automatically
> propagated to the dependent ones.  

Since the config lib is used to build ocaml, and the config/Makefile is
used to gen the config lib, if the config file is wrong, your ocaml
build will be wrong and installation of applications is a moot point.  

> (With Tcl, this surfaced in the
> naming of shared libraries).

Perhaps I would understand your point if you explained this example.

> Some prefer life simplified; others prefer to keep control of it.

Re: philosophy: Why would knowing what C compiler was used to compile 
& link the bytecode interp result in a loss of control?