[opam-devel] [MirageOS-devel] 'provides' field design proposal

Thomas Gazagnaire thomas at gazagnaire.org
Tue Jan 6 15:49:58 GMT 2015

Thanks Louis for the great summary!

> - The forking and providing replacements would be really useful for Mirage,
> where we're having an active discussion about how to provide Xen-specific
> versions of certain packages such as Zarith.  Thomas (with any surname),
> opinions on this? 

My opinion: I was very keen to have this feature on the bug tracker, but with all the designs details in mind I'm much less keen now. It introduces a lot of complexity with pinning so would be nice to see what we can simplify. For instance, maybe we could forbid virtual packages - and pin only to real packages. Need to think a bit more about that.

a more meta comments: if we put design files in the repo (I'm not very fond of that, but why not), could we have a header specifying the status of the document (ie. draft, partially implemented, deprecated, etc...) and the target opam versions. And keep that up-to-date please.


> - How much damage will this do to the internal solver heuristics?
> -anil
>> On 5 Jan 2015, at 08:36, Louis Gesbert <louis.gesbert at ocamlpro.com> wrote:
>> Hi all, and happy new year !
>> I just added to opam a design proposal to open discussion on the implementation of the 'provides' field and its use-cases.
>> It's at https://github.com/ocaml/opam/blob/master/doc/design/provides.md
>> Cheers,
>> Louis
>> _______________________________________________
>> opam-devel mailing list
>> opam-devel at lists.ocaml.org
>> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
> _______________________________________________
> MirageOS-devel mailing list
> MirageOS-devel at lists.xenproject.org
> http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel

More information about the opam-devel mailing list