On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:08:07PM +0100, Markus Mottl wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jean-Christophe Filliatre wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, I (try to) carefully package my libraries and
> > applications  so that  they  compile with  "./configure  && make"  and
> > install  with  "make  install".  (Libraries  are  installed  in  ocaml
> > standard  library  place, which  is  determined  automatically by  the
> > configure script; presence of a  native code compiler is also detected
> > automatically; etc.)
> 
> This is definitely a reasonable way to do it: "./configure && make &&
> make install" is more or less the standard way of configuring, building
> and installing software from source on Unix-systems, even if there are
> plenty of developers who don't adhere to this quasi-standard.

Yes, ...

I know i am repeating myself, but please consider adding the following
points also :

  o support the DESTDIR prefix to your install directory. distribution
    need to install into different directories than the ones the
    package will unpack into.

  o support separate compilation for bytecode and nativecode. I build
    bytecode versions of my packages on my i386 box alongside the native
    versions. The bytecode package is arch: all, and will be
    installeable on every arch, including slower arches like m68k, where
    building huge ocaml bytecode executables is a waste of time if it
    can be done quicker on my box.

This are the two parts most people don't ever think about, and for which
i need to patch the makefiles myself every time. I could double or
triple the amount of stuff i package if this was easier handled.

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