Re: MLton Homebrew package (Mac OS X)?

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Adam Chlipala <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/01/2016 02:19 PM, Matthew Fluet wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Adam Chlipala <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> (2) The existing binary MLton package hardcodes a path to libgmp that
>>> apparently is quite nonstandard.  As a result, what I'm told is a
>>> standard Travis Continuous Integration script based on Homebrew fails to
>>> run MLton successfully.  See this log:
>>> https://travis-ci.org/urweb/urweb/jobs/99660971
>> That looks like a simple packaging bug when I created the statically
>> linked binary.  (Considering that no one else has ever noted the
>> problem in 2+ years, it seems that the statically linked binary is not
>> commonly used.)  You could simply patch the /usr/local/bin/mlton
>> script to remove the '/opt/local/lib/libgmp.a' option.
>
> OK, sounds straightforward enough!
>
>> I think that you could easily deal with issue #2 (in the short term)
>> by updating the mlton formula
>> (https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-boneyard/blob/master/mlton.rb)
>> to include some post-install action that appropriately updates the
>> /usr/local/bin/mlton script.
>> [...]
>>
>> Issue #1 is really a policy issue.  As we've noted elsewhere, we don't
>> really think that building MLton with SML/NJ is a solution to the
>> build-from-source issue.
>>
>> [...] In any case, perhaps it would suffice to install a temporary copy of
>> the binary MLton package for the purposes of building the source MLton
>> package?  As noted above, we can, with some post extract actions,
>> handle putting the binary MLton package at any suitably obscure,
>> non-canonical location, as long as it is in PATH for the source MLton
>> build.
>
> Yeah, that sounds like a good plan.  I think it needs someone
> representing the MLton community and starting a conversation with the
> Homebrew maintainers, maybe as a GitHub issue.  I would be willing to
> take the lead there, though it feels a little funny for me to do it, as
> someone who is not involved with developing MLton. What do you think
> would be the best way to proceed?

I'm not sure, as I'm not familiar with Homebrew (neither the technical
aspects nor the development culture).  If you have some experience
working with Homebrew maintainers, then I would think that it makes
sense for you to take the lead.

In any case, perhaps it might make sense to create a
MLton/homebrew-mlton GitHub repository to work out some proof of
concept formulas.  Placing it under the MLton organization should help
to demonstrate that the work is "blessed" by the upstream MLton
project.

> If the Homebrew folks accept a binary package as legit, for this reason
> that is very compelling in my opinion, then it would be great if the
> MLton team could also implement one of the simple fixes for the libgmp
> path, in what would become the standard package.

Certainly, I can spin up a new MLton 20130705 tarball that fixes the
static libgmp location.

> P.S.: Sorry for probably coming across as entitled-feeling in my
> original post.  I think a small amount of work here can have a big
> impact on how easy MLton is to use for open-source developers.

No worries; we're more than happy to help out interested users.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MLton-user" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].


------------------------------------------------------------------------------