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: [Caml-list] CDK with Ocaml 3.06 (fwd)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sven LUTHER <luther@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK with Ocaml 3.06 (fwd)
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:53:05PM -0700, Chris Hecker wrote:
> >At least for the windows solution, i strongly think a binary
> >distribution mechanism is what is needed for the users and also would
> >save a lot of time and 'howto build' kind of questions on the mailing
> >lists. There is no reason not to do so, i am no windows expert, but
> >windows offer a stable set of libraries and other system component that
> >can be relied upon to install ocaml binary packages upon. This already
> >works for ocaml itself.
> Yes, binary distribution would work fine on windows.  Bytecode binary 
> distribution for most libraries should work fine on all platforms.

Yes, that would be a good start, windows binaries and bytecode.

The outside dependencies (the ones on things not ocaml related, tcl/tk,
gtk+ and so on) is the main difficulty here.

BTW, if it comes to that, i have plan to ship every debian package
containing programs (as opposed to library packages) as a single
bytecode package built without -custom and a native code version on the
arches that support them.

If things like file layout, external dependencies and library
distribution (in particular the stublibs) are resolved, i suppose you
could install these exact same packages on non-debian systems also.

I don't have time to work on this though :(((

> I think at this point it's more important to do something small and get it 
> going than it is to solve all possible package management problems.  Even 
> something that just allowed a standard way of getting a tar ball of source 
> for a given package and for its dependencies would be better than nothing, 
> and we could improve it as we went.
> The -pack option made this a lot simpler, because now libraries can be 
> distributed as a single module.  If we make some relatively simple 
> standards for build targets I think we can start making progress.

But the -pack option is not yet standardized, and not used in much
cases, it seems to me.

> Of course, if something like apt would just work for us (on all platforms, 
> source and binary), then that would be excellent and we should just start 
> using it.

it will never just work, it 'just works' on debian, because of the
debian maintainers who do the work of making sure the packages work.


Sven Luther
To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: