Browse thread
build, distribution, data and metadata
-
Cristian Baboi
-
Nicolas Pouillard
-
Aleksey Nogin
- Nicolas Pouillard
- Cristian Baboi
-
Aleksey Nogin
-
Nicolas Pouillard
[
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: | Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata |
Excerpts from nogin's message of Fri Feb 01 23:56:16 +0100 2008: > On 29.01.2008 09:56, Bünzli Daniel wrote: > > >> I know there is Omake, > > > > Having used ocamlbuild for caml projects, for me it is out of question > > to return to something make-like. > > On 31.01.2008 01:28, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > >> - the make files are written in a well defined language > > Considering GNU make, BSD make, pmake, bmake, omake... I would say no. > > IMHO it would be improper to consider OMake as being make-like and group > it together with various make variants. While some very basic elements > of OMake syntax are made to resemble make in order to facilitate > learning OMake for those familiar with make, but in most respects it is > a lot closer to, say, ocamlbuild than to make. I think you're right, I really hesitated to put omake in the same group, because that's really *not* just a make variant. Of course being ocamlbuild-opinionated didn't helped me :) -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai