From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD658BC6C for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:56:20 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAIoyo0eD1ywC/2dsb2JhbACufQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,292,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="22071278" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2008 23:56:20 +0100 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m11MuJ9O020543 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:56:20 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAIoyo0eD1ywC/2dsb2JhbACufQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,292,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="22071277" Received: from blizzard.cs.caltech.edu ([131.215.44.2]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2008 23:56:19 +0100 Received: from localhost (flood.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.31]) by blizzard.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CF52A3120; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowstorm.cs.caltech.edu ([131.215.44.21]) by localhost (flood.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.31]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07888-08; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (c-71-195-114-61.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.195.114.61]) by snowstorm.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112B6262FF8; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:56:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47A3A390.7080308@metaprl.org> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:56:16 -0800 From: Aleksey Nogin Reply-To: Caml List Organization: MetaPRL/Mojave Research Group User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20071220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml List Cc: Nicolas Pouillard , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=FCn?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?zli_Daniel?= Subject: Re: [Caml-list] build, distribution, data and metadata References: <1201771428-sup-8932@ausone.inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <1201771428-sup-8932@ausone.inria.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47A3A393.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bunzli:01 improper:01 variants:01 syntax:01 co-author:01 28,:98 imho:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 caml:02 defined:02 gnu:03 daniel:04 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. Of course, this is just a biased opinion of an OMake co-author ;-) Aleksey