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
[Caml-list] Compiler ActiveDVI (CVS)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-01-31 (11:45)
From: Sven <luther@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Compiler ActiveDVI (CVS)
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 10:45:46AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> Hello Ian,
> > Jacques> If you start to mess around with the directories, this is not
> > Jacques> very helpful for anybody. 
> > 
> > Yes, it is: to people with experience on Debian, but none on Ocaml.
> > Which is exactly the sort of people that would install a binary
> > package, I think.
> The point is that the "right" way to compile an extension to ocaml is
> to use ocamlc, which will automatically add /usr/lib/ocaml to the
> include path. If the caml subdirectory is not there, this will not be
> very useful. Using ocamlc will also set properly some compilation
> flags for thread compliance, and make sure you can build a dll.

I can add a symlink then, if it is agreable.

> Since these headers will preferably _not_ be used by gcc directly,
> they don't need to be in the standard hierarchy.

Well, but people will look there.

> Another problem is that both ocaml's (unfortunately limited)
> documentation, and ocaml developpers base themselves on a standard
> installation. If you start messing around, you end-up with the kind of
> quiproquo we are seeing here.

I will have to patch the documentation then, or better yet add a note about

> > The way I did it when I built Ocaml from sources was with a symlink,
> > so that it existed in both places.
> A symlink avoids all these problems. And if you do it yourself, you
> know that you're doing something nonstandard, and will no bother the
> developpers with this.

I will add a symlink in the next version of the package.

> > BTW, /usr/include/ocaml (to match the package name) would be a better
> > name. 
> That seems a good idea too.

but will break all those #include <caml/xxx.h> :)))

5BTW, i agree, there are lot of caml left around in the ocaml distribution and
friends which could be changed to ocaml.

> By the way, all my comments do not intend to criticize the work of
> packagers. I know this is a hard task. I just hope we could end up
> with a better way to combine efforts.

Okay, i appreciate, i maybe don't all the time see things as fully as i
should, and may ignore problems that you or others may encounter. 

I will add a symlink though, and everybody will be happy.


Sven Luther
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: