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] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-04-17 (06:29)
From: Kenneth Knowles <kknowles@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] build tools - good vs. fast, both cheap

I don't want to be redundant, but certainly Gentoo's ebuilds (which I'm *not*
advocating as an exact model) are very similar too.  If you haven't checked 'em
out then you should, but it seems like you've covered most everything that they
have, and then some.


On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 10:47:24PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
> William Lovas wrote:
> > 
> > This is essentially the goal of the GODIVA project (formerly GODOR) that
> > Owen Gunden and i are working on:  We're grafting a sensible specification
> > onto the frontend of GODI so that it's easier for developers to make
> > packages.  In the future, this specification could stay around if some
> > other underlying backend technology supplanted GODI, and all that would
> > require updating would be the backend of GODIVA.
> > 
> > A (very!) preliminary release of GODIVA is available as the GODI package
> > called godor.  In a few days, Owen and i will be packaging up a new release
> > incorporating the ideas from this paper:
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> > (And this time, "a few days" really means "a few days" -- we have a hard
> > (academic) deadline to meet!)
> I took a look at the PDF and it looks great.  I'm looking forward
> to getting some cycles to put a couple of packages into it.
> Some comments in no particular order, and some may be relevant for
> Godi:
> 1) I think it would be a good idea to take a look at the Fink
>    package management system that is used for Mac OS X
>    I think they've dealt with many of the issues that we'll deal
>    with and we can learn from their mistakes.  They've been around
>    since Mac OS X 10.0, so that's been a while.
>    Fink compiles libraries, binaries, etc and has a similar
>    format as Godiva's files.
>    The packaging specification is at
> 2) To make updating the Godiva file easier for a new package and to
>    prevent mistakes, say somebody updates the Version field and
>    forgets to update Sources: have a %v replacement in the URL that
>    uses the Version field.
> 3) Having a License field would be good for people to easily
>    see what license the package is licensed under.
> 4) The Fink people split packages into SSL and non-SSL packages
>    for distribution of Fink to countries where encryption is more
>    restricted.  Maybe keep a field for this.
> 5) Have a Conflicts field if two different packages conflict?
>    Say if you have hooks to Berkeley DB3 and DB4 and because they
>    both have a db.mli, only one can be installed.  This ties into...
> 6) What about splitting libraries into two separate packages,
>    one for interface files and one for the libraries?  That way you
>    can have installed different .so files for different libraries
>    and binaries that linked against them and not have the .mli files
>    around.  I may be thinking too much of a C environment here.
> 7) Having a single sources_unpacksto may not handle all cases.  Fink
>    has a rich set of settings for this that would be good to look
>    at
> I think my major point is that has more packages use Godiva to
> build and install and issues come up, it would be great to
> reference Fink.  Definitely take a look at it.
> Best,
> Blair
> -- 
> Blair Zajac <>
> Plots of your system's performance -
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
> Bug reports: FAQ:
> Beginner's list:

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