[MLton-user] FreeBSD building problems + known errors question

Alexandre Xlex0x835@rambler.ru
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:03:17 +0300

On Dec 29, 2004, at 23:38, Stephen Weeks wrote:

> You understand wrong.  The comment is correct.  MLton is written in
> SML and requires itself to build.

Oh, sorry about that.

> We are currently working on improving our FreeBSD packaging (including
> fixing the dead links and getting the new release).  See the recent
> thread
> 	http://mlton.org/pipermail/mlton/2004-December/016982.html
> Hopefully these issues will get sorted out soon.

Thank you for the link.

> The other error (gmp.h: No such file) arises because building MLton
> requires the GnuMP library.  On platforms where we use the packaging
> system (like RedHat, Debian, FreeBSD) we express that using a build
> dependency.  On other platforms (Cygwin, Darwin, ...) where we just
> use a tgz, you must build/install the GnuMP yourself.
> I've added a note about this to
> 	http://mlton.org/SelfCompiling

Thank you for the note and link again. I will try...

>> It's also can be too hard for old computers to build it (my old PII
>> 350 & 128Mb RAM still build OCaml, while I need SML).
> There's nothing to be done about this.  You really need 512Mb RAM to
> compile MLton with itself.

Yes, I heard about such memory requirements, but now I'm waiting for 
downloading docs related stuff, and still can not even start to compile 

>> At the site I meet several known bugs - does I understand right, that
>> they remain unfixed till now?
> I assume you're referring to
> 	http://mlton.org/UnresolvedBugs
> If so, yes, these are unfixed and will remain so.  But they are really
> listed there in the interest of completeness -- you will find that
> most or all other SML compilers suffer from these bugs (as well as
> others).

Yes, that's really good that you list it, but why not to fix parser 
issue and just make release with this fix?

>> P.S. By the way, why "MLton is no longer hosted at SourceForge"?
> Sourceforge didn't provide enough control over many things and also
> had severe performance and correctness problems with its mailing lists
> and CVS.

It's smart decision, I think - you still listed there (you can get more 
people involved in) and do not depend on them... =)