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] GODI news
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-08-09 (18:48)
From: Alexander V. Voinov <avv@q...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GODI news
Hi All,

And in general, the developers (/porters) environment is different from one 
where the application is supposed to run. It is quite reasonable to assume (and 
therefore insist :-) that some easily available tools are present within the 
former, and it is also reasonable [to try to] not to depend on them for the 
latter (in favor for mingw, in this case).


Dmitry Bely wrote:
> Matt Gushee <> writes:
>>>>Why Cygwin, rather than MinGW?
>>>Simple answer: It is unwise to do the second step before the first.
>>>Using Cygwin means that you have a full POSIX environment (Unix tools,
>>>libraries), but there are already typical Windows problems, e.g.
>>>filename conventions, CRLF, etc. Solve these first!
>>Okay. I trust that you know what you are talking about, but I still
>>don't really understand. By saying "there are already ..." are you
>>implying that the "typical Windows problems" become worse when using
> No. But in case of MinGW/MSVC you have a bunch of other problems: no
> configure scripts, different Ocaml compilation process (manual editing of
> config files, makefile.nt instead of makefile) etc. As GODI has come from
> UNIX world, cygwin (or maybe MSYS) is the only chance to use it under
> Windows.
>>And further, are these problems that can actually be solved,
>>or simply worked around.
>>>For the build environment, it is unlikely that we ever get rid of
>>I thought that MinGW came with gcc, gnu make, and so on. Am I mistaken,
>>or are they poorly implemented, or what?
> AFAIK sh needed to run configure scripts simply does not exist in the
> "native" form (as well as many other gnu utilities). Its design is based on
> fork() syscall that cannot be easily emulated under Win32.
> Of course, a packaging tool entirely written in Ocaml would be preferable,
> but it will probably require too much efforts. So UNIX-style tool is better
> than nothing.
> - Dmitry Bely
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
> Bug reports: FAQ:
> Beginner's list:

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