[opam-devel] How to manage a package manager (Was: Re: [opam] Build clarification (#1149))
yminsky at gmail.com
Sun Feb 2 18:34:51 GMT 2014
I broadly agree with Anil's point about priorities. opam-in-opam
seems tricky, and to me relatively low value. Making packages and
installation and uninstallation more reliable seems more boring, but
way more important.
In terms of improving package quality, I wonder if we need better
tools to highlight to package owners when their packages fail. One
approach would be for each package to have a set of owners, and for
each owner to have a status page that alerts them to problems with
their packages. I think there would be a lot of value in alerting
people when their packages are broken, and it would be even better to
reject their pull requests automatically if it appears that they're
breaking the world.
A useful concept here is blame. When something is broken, it's nice
if you can (sometimes artificially) choose someone to "blame" for the
problem, i.e., someone who is in some way involved in what has gone
wrong, and can be the responsible person to ensure it gets fixed, or
gets assigned to the right person to fix it. I wonder if ocamlot (or
whatever triaging system we end upwith) can have some notion of blame
built into it.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Anil Madhavapeddy <anil at recoil.org> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2014, at 19:27, Fabrice Le Fessant <Fabrice.Le_fessant at inria.fr> wrote:
>> Anil, I am worried that your workflow is not the typical workflow of
>> OCaml developers. You are an expert in OPAM, having several OPAM
>> repositories and so on. The typical user I imagine has little
>> knowledge of OPAM, and expect upgrades of both the repository and of
>> OPAM to be as simple as possible. I remember using Cabal to install
>> some Haskell software: I would do it once per year, at most, and
>> everytime, I was very annoyed to discover some incompatibility that
>> would require an update of Cabal itself. Now, I fear to see the same
>> problem with OPAM.
> Hi Fabrice,
> I do agree with you here of course. I'm just noting from my experience
> with running quite a few OPAM-based tutorials in the last year (starting
> with the public beta release in ICFP 2012 with Thomas and Yaron, and
> subsequently from helping a number of non-OCaml users get started with
> Mirage and Real World OCaml, both of which require OPAM), that users
> are primarily confused by two things:
> - Getting started with OPAM: including utop, their ocamlinit, and all
> the other bits and bobs (especially editor integration).
> - Broken packages. Part of the reason for Cabal's irritation are
> incorrect package constraints. Now, if you were leave an OPAM install
> for a few months and upgrade, then you are using a very untested path
> in the solver. A lot of things have to work *perfectly* to have a
> successful package upgrade: the solver has to find a solution, the
> uninstall targets have to be correct (or else ocamlfind complains
> on the subsequent installation, and the installation must work including
> depexts). If anything goes wrong here, then the user's left to debug
> the mess themselves.
> I prioritise improving these above anything else to do with OPAM for
> my own hacking time. We've made very significant progress (thanks to
> Roberto and the aspcud team) in OPAM 1.1.1, but there is always more to
> For the second point, I must admit I'm a little disappointed by the
> lack of feedback to my various posts about doing OPAM bulk builds to
> improve the package repository quality. After the Docker post 
> (which works on any modern Linux), I also published the logfiles from
> the build  and triaged a number of bugs , but not many other
> people have contributed fixes. I would very much like to get to a
> 100% package installation rate, which we can then keep at 100% due to
> the ongoing package testing for new pull requests.
>  http://anil.recoil.org/2013/11/15/docker-and-opam.html
>  https://github.com/avsm/opam-bulk-logs
>  https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/issues/1304
> The question of upgrading OPAM itself has never come up with anyone,
> since most users simply used their OS-installed tool to upgrade from
> OPAM 1.0 to 1.1. The only major bug with this approach was because
> the release of OCaml 4.01 coincided with OPAM 1.1, and a lot of Mac
> users ended up upgrading their system compiler *and* OPAM simultaneously,
> which led to complete meltdown of their ~/.opam (see )
>  https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/issues/24315
> This nasty bug should tell us that upgrades are just very complicated
> and need a lot of testing (we tested system compiler updates, and OPAM
> version updates, but never together!). I would expect any auto-update
> procedure to at least consider these issues:
> - What happens during an upgrade if a newly installed OPAM binary
> inside a ~/.opam requires an upgrade of the OPAM metadata?
> - If you do an opam update using the OPAM binary installed within
> the ~/.opam space, how do you avoid a 'text file busy' error
> due to being unable to replace the currently executing binary?
> We see this a lot on Mirage  due to the command line tool
> and the libraries being mixed up, as mentioned earlier.
> - If the user invokes OPAM without first calling `opam config env`,
> they will use the *old* OPAM with a *new* repository. This
> is currently a non-issue since there is only one OPAM binary,
> and all sub-commands spawned by it apply the correct env variables.
> The autoupdate scheme proposed will absolutely require that the
> user has correctly set up their `opam config env`, which is
> something that I've observed many users not do (including myself).
> This will thus require support and testing of downgrade.
>  https://travis-ci.org/mirage/mirage-www/jobs/17859382
>> Even if it's not easy to achieve, because of the risk of breaking
>> other OPAM features, I think "transparent update" is definitively
>> something the typical user of OPAM would like and find very cool with
>> OPAM, and worth adding the feature to the roadmap !
> I'm obviously not against adding magical auto-updating, but I hope
> that any such proposal will consider the issues i raise above.
> Personally, I'm going to spend my limited time working on what
> I've observed are the real (but admittedly more boring) problems
> with day-to-day OPAM use that I listed above, such as upstream
> packaging and improving the repository quality.
> More broadly, I do not believe that we should get too dependent on
> OPAM and ignore upstream binary packaging. In Xen for example,
> the Debian and Fedora packages require binary OCaml packages to
> link against, and telling everyone to use OPAM is not an acceptable
> opam-devel mailing list
> opam-devel at lists.ocaml.org
More information about the opam-devel