Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata

["Nicolas Pouillard" <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]