Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:49:00 -0800
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (David Gurr)
Subject: Re: config info
> > Hi, The installation of ocaml based applications might be
> > simplified if the standard "make install" copied the config lib and
> > the config/Makefile to the library location. Or if this is messy,
> > how about a "make install-devel" that does the copying? Thanks for
> > considering this detail.
> Tcl/Tk does this, and I absolutely hate it. First of all, the config
> file is text,
The config lib is not text and could be extended to include all the
> and in GNU-like environments it should go under the
> share tree, not under lib. Second, and more important, it limits
> flexibility in the derived installations.
I *need* inflexiblity. The point of .cmi files is the inflexiblity
of consistency. I need to use the same compiler etc that was used
to build ocaml.
> This is partly a
> "philosophical" issue (see the last sentence of this message), but
> also a practical one: any bug in the original build is automatically
> propagated to the dependent ones.
Since the config lib is used to build ocaml, and the config/Makefile is
used to gen the config lib, if the config file is wrong, your ocaml
build will be wrong and installation of applications is a moot point.
> (With Tcl, this surfaced in the
> naming of shared libraries).
Perhaps I would understand your point if you explained this example.
> Some prefer life simplified; others prefer to keep control of it.
Re: philosophy: Why would knowing what C compiler was used to compile
& link the bytecode interp result in a loss of control?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:21 MET