Re: Portability of applications written in OCAML: C stuff

From: Alan Schmitt (alan.schmitt@inria.fr)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2000 - 16:04:32 MET

  • Next message: Manuel Fahndrich: "# types and polymorphic variants"

    ..
    >In particular, while my product is currently Unix only, the build
    >process
    >must work under Windows too, which rules out make, autoconf, and other
    >such silliness. :-)

    I gather this rules out using a compiler too ... ;-)
    In particular, when you say "must work under windows", do you mean out
    of the box window, or one with some tools installed (ocaml, python,
    cygwin thus bash, make ...)

    > pcre cannot build without config.h, and neither can mlgtk.
    >So there is a conflict, since both require a file called 'config.h'.

    I have many "config.h" in many source distributions in my /usr/src
    directory. I have never had such a problem. Actually, most of the
    time, to build an application you don't need to build the
    library. You actually require that it is there (and the nice thing is
    you can make your ./configure check for it). Librairies and include
    files are installed in some canonical places which can be looked up,
    or non-canonical which can be explicitely given to the installation
    script.

    >> > PLEASE use filenames that are specialised to your package,
    >> > do NOT use generic names on the assumption your code will
    >> > be built with your Makefile in a separate directory.
    >>
    >> This is impossible.
    >
    > It is not impossible to try.

    True, but since there is a nice mechanism to deal with this (ie
    Makefile and directories), is this really worth it ?
    Do you think we should adopt the java convention for naming ? This
    would be a pain ...

    Alan Schmitt

    --
    The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 24 2000 - 18:50:27 MET