On 2015-05-19 17:39, Martin Lucina wrote:
On Tuesday, 19.05.2015 at 17:15, Peter Zotov wrote:
On 2015-05-19 16:58, Martin Lucina wrote:
>This begs the question, why did you use the approach of building the
>cross-compiler as a normal OPAM package, rather than as a compiler
>package?
Because the cross-compiler needs a normal compiler (and its runtime)
to build and execute. Because many packages (from camlp4 to ppx)
depend on build-time components that execute on the host arch.
You also still have to add suffix to the version number, or else
there would be a conflict (I think).
Wouldn't the presence of an external (non-OPAM) compiler on the host be
enough to execute the cross-compiler and build-time code from packages?
That's more or less what your patches already do to bootstrap the
compiler...
Yes. In fact, it works with the OPAM switch `system`. One problem is
that it only works if the bitness of host/target matches due to
a compiler issue, and another is that some people, like me, do not
use system compilers at all.
But, it does cover your use case anyway.
Martin
--
Peter Zotov
_______________________________________________
opam-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
