From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA30998; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:38:20 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA30909 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:38:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3GEdJjq002515 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:39:20 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp117-65.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.117.65]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3GEc9k2083416; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:08:10 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] build tools - good vs. fast, both cheap From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: "Brandon J. Van Every" Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1082126288.20063.69.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 17 Apr 2004 00:38:08 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 brandon:99 all-ocaml:01 misses:01 crappy:01 crappy:01 bootstrap:01 dependencies:01 tarballs:01 autoconf:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 16:31, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > So where are we? We're having the age old engineering argument, "good, > fast, cheap, pick any two." We're all open source developers so we're > all cheap. :-) We've got one camp that sees an all-OCaml build + > package management system as the goal. Count me in on that, and I will > label it the "GOOD AND CHEAP" camp. We've got another camp that sees > getting any build + package management system together as quickly as > possible from readily available parts as the goal. I will label it the > "FAST AND CHEAP" camp. Ok, then my opinion is that this analysis misses the point. We can do both. First hack together any crappy code that works, then make something elegant -- using the crappy code to help bootstrap the effort. How do we do this? Well, one thing must NOT be crappy, even for the crappy code -- and that is the specification. Writing a package manager isn't the problem, IMHO. The problem is defining what a package IS, where the pieces go, and how dependencies are stated.. etc etc. > What is the ultimate goal? I say, the ultimate goal is total ease of > use for an OCaml developer. NO! Ocaml developers don't need package managers, we're nerds, we'll happily use tarballs, CVS .. and even .. gasp .. autoconf.. :D Package managers are for our CLIENTS. I want to build something which USES your code, and be able to distribute MY code and not yours .. and know my client can get it easily .. preferably my build script will do that automatically in a uniform way for your code, fred's code, Joe's code and Mary's code .. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners