Jacques GARRIGUE wrote:
>
> I think that it would be much more reasonable to have a packaging
> system controlling all of ocaml, but only ocaml.

Reasonable, but foreign libraries aren't going away.  Not until OCaml
has everything under its own roof, and that will be quite some time.  A
proper OCaml package system will have deal with foreign libraries
somehow, even if the support is half-assed.

> Last, we need support for windows, and for binary packages.

I hope you only mean "last" as a way of listing things needed, i.e.
first, second, last.  If you mean these are your last priorities, I'd
never contribute to such a project.  I'm bloody fed up with GNU Make on
Windows for reasons I won't belabor here.

> Which creates another problem: GODI is based on C tools and BSD
> makefiles. I'm not sure this is the favorite kind of things ocaml
> programmers would maintain.

An OCaml-centric packaging tool should be written in OCaml.  Nobody's
switching to OCaml out of their love for C and C++!  If that means GODI
is unsuitable to task, that is unfortunate but reality is reality.
Other languages such as Python and Java have spawned their own build
tools.  There's a lot more to the world than Make.

So how is OCamake?  Is it not the obvious place to begin?


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                          - anonymous entrepreneur



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004

-------------------
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