Browse thread
[OSR] Ports-like package management system
[
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: | Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@l...> |
| Subject: | Re: [OSR] Ports-like package management system |
On 30-01-2008, Pietro Abate <Pietro.Abate@anu.edu.au> wrote: > Hi all > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:06:29AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: >> On 29-01-2008, Berke Durak <berke.durak@exalead.com> wrote: >> > Assume you are writing a program FOO and want to use a package BAR >> > available from bar.org. You tell ocamlbuild by adding some tag such >> > as >> > >> > <mytarget.native>: require(http://bar.org/repository/) >> > >> > And when you run ocamlbuild, it automatically checks out a copy of >> > BAR, compiles and loads its myocamlbuild.ml module which adds the >> > required flags. Of course it should be possible to specify a >> > particular revision... And if BAR has itself dependencies, those too >> > would be checked out. > > My two cents here: > > I'd like to follow the lead from the idea above. I've the impression we > are not converging. I think if we want to succeed in this packaging > revolution we need to proceed is small steps. > [...] To make a short summary: * have a makefile with 4 targets in upstream tarball: opt, byte, clean, install * have a central repository with all the upstream tarball That is "keep it simple and stupide" (KISS)! That is great, easy and direct. I like it. I think we should add some variable to the makefile to define target installation et al, but that is technical details. The main idea fit to a progressive way of doing. Maybe at the beginning we should provide the Makefile as and external things (just like GODI). Regards, Sylvain Le Gall