Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] CDK with Ocaml 3.06 (fwd)
[
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 <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. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners