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: | David Allsopp <dra-news@m...> |
| Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] Re: [OSR] Ports-like package management system |
> I don't think we will reach a consensus about the build tools. > Currently, the most widely used is make+Unix utilities. I've not yet > seen much omake, and ocamlbuild neither. Suggestions to move away from > make are often driven by better Windows support. Windows has ample support for make and friends at http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ - I've happily used make under Windows for years without resorting to Cygwin. As long as you keep your scripts sane you can write "portable" OCaml Makefiles that work correctly under *NIX and Windows using all your favourite shell commands. I recall that RH Linux (a long time ago, Fedora may be different!), by default, didn't install make or even a C compiler so a developer using RH Linux had to choose install these things. There's no conceivable reason why a Windows developer should expect not to have to install the odd development tool too in addition to the OCaml compiler. There of course other off-topic arguments for trying to adopt build systems other than make. Just to add a bit of Windows seasoning to this debate - if GODI (or whatever) becomes a "de facto" standard for OCaml packaging, then it's going to need to support Windows. David