From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ober.14@osu.edu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A54CBC69
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:01:31 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4HAOYlckdDWxLC/2dsb2JhbACBV6dh
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,209,1196636400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="7250860"
Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 26 Dec 2007 19:01:30 +0100
Received: from kuba.bertec.net (kuba.bertec.net [192.168.2.16])
	by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF3DCDFB7
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:01:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Kuba Ober <ober.14@osu.edu>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: MinGW port w/o Cygwin?
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:01:25 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071123.740460)
References: <200712200930.29585.ober.14@osu.edu> <476E7CA1.6000501@dravanet.hu> <20071224104022.GA30047@furbychan.cocan.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071224104022.GA30047@furbychan.cocan.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200712261301.25844.ober.14@osu.edu>
X-Spam: no; 0.00; mingw:01 cygwin:01 0100,:01 mingw:01 ocaml:01 -mno-cygwin:01 compiler:01 cflags:01 makefile:01 tarball:01 cheers:01 2007,:98 23,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 

On Monday 24 December 2007, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 04:20:01PM +0100, "M=E1rk S. Zolt=E1n" wrote:
> > I am using my clandestine MSys + MinGW OCaml since about 3.0, and I have
> > originally switched to MSys because the configuration scripts of a
> > number of other apps and libraries did not handle the -mno-cygwin flag,
> > or any other flag for that matter: the 'supply extra compiler flags'
> > feature seemed to be thoroughly broken in all configure scripts, I
> > wonder if anyone ever uses it.
>
> The problem is that configure.ac authors have to follow a series of
> arcane conventions to make sure they don't delete the user-specified
> CFLAGS.  Since they don't, and there's no indication to the author
> that they have, it is often broken.  But then the auto* tools are just
> terrible like this.

Using autotools for a windows build is insane. Just don't. Code the makefil=
e=20
by hand, it'll be much simpler. Or generate one on Unix when the tarball is=
=20
being prepared.

Cheers, Kuba