Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Pre-compiled ocaml binary for windows
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@l...>
Subject: Re: Pre-compiled ocaml binary for windows
Hello,

On 07-12-2010, Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr> wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 01:24 AM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> Here is the list so far:
>> 1. no build system setup : Martin who first did the packaging, didn't
>>     have included how to build ocaml/findlib neither the binaries itself.
>>     So basically you need to build by hand to generate the .msi. This is
>>     not a big issue but for a collective effort it is better to have a
>>     common way to build the binaries
>> 2. some environment variables are not set and make ocaml crash (AFAIR, we
>>     doesn't set OCAMLIB)
>> 3. we don't ship the graphical toplevel
>> 4. I am still not sure how to deal with ActiveTCL + OCaml (because of the
>>     ActiveTCL license)
>> 5. Total lack of documentation
>
> Do you plan to support ocamlopt?  If yes, the users will have to install 
> a toolchain (at least, an assembler+linker). Mingw has the advantage of 
> producing binaries that depend only on msvcrt.dll (available on any 
> fresh Windows installation), not on a specific version of 
> msvcr80.dll/msvcr90.dll. But Windows users might prefer to install a 
> version of VS Express or a Windows SDK.

We will provide ocamlopt (32/64 bits). But indeed, the toolchain can be
an issue (esp. masm). I plan to use VS2008.

Maybe the native Lexifi's amd64/x86 backend is a better option. If we
are able to use this backend, we still have to use a linker ?

>
> Not building labltk seems ok. As for the graphical toplevel, I think 
> there are some pending bugs (random crashes) with the current version 
> under recent versions of Windows, so it's probably better not to include 
> it. Some support for installing the emacs mode automatically and/or a 
> version of ledit would be useful replacements.
>

I didn't known this fact. This is another reason for not building
labltk. Since I almost never use it, I don't think it will be a big
loose.

I will probably look for ledit (or lwt toplevel) which seems a better
alternative to emacs (too heavy too install).

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall