Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang

Bengt Kleberg <>
Wed Feb 22 08:28:16 CET 2006


On 2006-02-20 12:39, Romain Lenglet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [...]
>> C stuff is what i am discussing. i am trying to say that it
>> should _not_ be needed for a ''normal'' erlang
>> application/library.
> 
> Among the 70 Jungerl libraries, 17 include C code.
> Are you trying to say that you don't care for 24% of Erlang 
> applications? Or is Jungerl not representative of real Erlang 
> development (i.e. it is not "normal")?

i am saying that the 76% of jungerl that do not use C is normal. the 
other 24% is not normal.


> Or do you want to define a simple build system for the simple 
> cases, and the let the difficult work out of its scope?

i would like to have a simple build/install system for normal erlang 
applications/libraries that would work without a gnu system (autotools, 
gnumake, gtar, gcc, etc).


...deleted
> Perhaps we have not been clear.
> 
> We do not propose to make every final user type
> ./configure ; make ; make install to install Erlang apps.

i thought this was what you proposed.


...deleted
> More generally, two questions were asked:
> 
> 1- What common interface should be defined between developers and 
> packagers?
> 
> Fredrik and I proposed to use Autoconf and make, and you can 
> discuss it, but please discuss it *as an interface* between 
> developers and packagers.

...deleted
> Again, Autoconf and make are the best choice in an Unix world, 
> and can also easily be used on Windows (Cygwin), but you can 
> discuss it.

i do not belive that Autoconf and make are the best choice in an Unix world.


> It was also proposed to make every application (including every 
> OTP app) released separately between developers and packagers, 	
> and (at least) between packagers and end users.
> Everybody seems to agree on that point.

what if the packagers moved upstreams and became a part of the developers?


bengt



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list