Hi, 2012/7/13 Adrien <camarade...@gmail.com>: > On 13/07/2012, Sylvain Le Gall <sylv...@le-gall.net> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2012/7/13 Adrien <camarade...@gmail.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm mentionning that a bit in advance but I've resumed my work for >>> yypkg (package manager that works on and for windows) and its >>> packages, and I'll be making a more formal announcement in a few days. >>> >>> I've added functions to yypkg and I've reworked packages. Currently, I >>> have packages for binutils, mingw-w64 headers+crt, cross gcc from >>> linux to i686-w64-mingw32, zlib, xz, win-iconv, gettext, libjpeg, >>> expat, and soon freetype, fontconfig, libpng, and then lua. While this >>> may not seem much, take into account that I've started this run of >>> packages only a few days ago. >>> >>> I don't currently provide a native compiler (i.e. running on windows) >>> but this should be fairly easy to do. I'm not trying to make it >>> possible to build packages on windows however: only cross-compiling >>> (both for safety and security, and simplicity). >>> >>> Of course, the binary packages are re-usable outside of yypkg. >>> >>> There are no ocaml packages currently (this will take some time, >>> mostly because of the need to cross-compile) >>> >>> I'm mentionning this in order to avoid wasted duplicated efforts. >>> >> >> My take on that: diversity should be a good things and given the >> number of potential bugs, this is better to have more than one way to >> build stuff. What is a "wasted" duplicated effort is to not take into >> consideration integration of your system with another (e.g. prevent >> GODI to work with yypkg). I think at best we should work alltogether >> toward a good long term solution that will work on Windows. GODI is a >> good starting point because it has already a pretty big number of >> packages and that I already use it on other platform in my CI system >> (and it is very useful for testing/releasing). >> >> As I see yypkg, I think you should focus to provide: >> 1. binary C packages (iconv, gettext and so on) >> 2. OCaml + findlib >> 3. be compatible with GODI binary packages ? >> >> 1. don't really overlap with GODI and can help GODI to build C related >> packages. >> 2. overlap BUT helps project like odb.ml >> 3. is optional but would provide a huge bunch of OCaml packages on the >> long term. >> >> What do you think about this plan ? > > Currently, I don't have OCaml packages. I won't have any until I can > cross-compile them, which won't happen before support for that is > available *upstream* so it won't happen before at least a few months. > > In the end, I hope to provide binary packages for ocaml libraries and > tools but there will be the same overlap as there currently is between > godi, odb.ml, and any other package manager for _binaries_. > > Right now, I'm mentionning yypkg and its packages for your first > point. If you want to! Be aware that it exists and you can use its > packages and possibly itself too. Unless you dislike it and the other > possible alternatives (opensuse has i686-w64-mingw32 libs too), you > won't have to spend time on C libraries. >
OK, so if we were at christmas time, I would ask you for "libarchive", curl, latest pcre maybe xmlm... And if you are really Santa Claus "gtk" !. At least libarchive/curl are a good match for what I want to do in oasis-db. It would help me a lot to go forward with oasis-db. Has I have a Win7 VM and that my first point is to run tests on it, I will stick to std compilation. Cross-compilation is nice but I think most of the OCaml tools around will fail (although it seems that the delta to make it works with OASIS packages is just a few lines to change in setup.ml, but I want to see it/test it before being sure). Thx Sylvain _______________________________________________ Godi-list mailing list Godi-list@ocaml-programming.de https://godirepo.camlcity.org/mailman/listinfo/godi-list
