[opam-devel] [Caml-list] [ANN] IOCaml v0.3

[Sylvain Le Gall]

2014-02-14 14:32 GMT+01:00 Anil Madhavapeddy <anil at recoil.org>:
> 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:
>> http://oasis.ocamlcore.org/dev/view/ZMQ/latest
>>
>> 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?

Will work fine as well, I suppose.

>
> 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.
>

In this case, we should remove ocaml-zmq. I think we should avoid
clutter in the archive.

> -anil

Sylvain