Browse thread
[Caml-list] Compiler ActiveDVI (CVS)
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| 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 them. > > 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. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr