[opam-devel] [Caml-list] [ANN] IOCaml v0.3
anil at recoil.org
Fri Feb 14 13:32:08 GMT 2014
On 14 Feb 2014, at 12:43, Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain+ocaml at le-gall.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Sorry if you hate me for what I am just about to say.
> 2014-02-14 10:57 GMT+01:00 Anil Madhavapeddy <anil at recoil.org>:
>> This is great! (CCing opam-devel)
>> I'd like to resolve the zmq situation, since the current "ocaml-zmq" package in opam-stable has no maintainer, and is pointing to an unstable tarball.
>> We could add a new zmq package to OPAM that does not clash with "ocaml-zmq" , based off the Issuu branch which appears maintained. I'm CCing Anders Fugmann for his opinion on this. After a while, we could remove the ocaml-zmq package if the upstream cannot be contacted.
> I would 100% prefer that ocaml-zmq "ownership" or "official branch"
> became Issuu branch. I think it will be better to have 1 maintained
> package than 1 maintain and 1 unmaintained.
> That said, I am not sure how to transfer ownership in Github (or even
> if it is possible). So my proposal, is to create a forge project to
> just host the tarballs and made OPAM to point to it. I am not saying
> that the project VCS should move away from Github! I just think that a
> forge project would be nice and would allow to have the maintained
> branch release there...
> An alternate method is to use:
> But this old OASIS-DB instance will go through major refactoring some
> time this year, so I would prefer hosting tarballs on Forge...
I don't really understand the benefit of involving the Forge here.
Why not just swap the `url` to point to the new GitHub maintainer
in the OPAM description?
The reason I suggest adding a new package `zmq` in this case is
because the existing `ocaml-zmq` is misnamed in OPAM anyway, so we
can solve two problems at once.
More information about the opam-devel