[opam-devel] [MirageOS-devel] 'provides' field design proposal
Dave.Scott at citrix.com
Tue Jan 6 18:27:14 GMT 2015
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 15:49, Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas at gazagnaire.org> wrote:
> 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.
FYI over in the xapi-project we’ve been experimenting with putting design docs in a central github repo and having github render them nicely e.g.
We stick a header on top like
title: thin LVHD storage
and have a design doc index template
So far it’s working quite well for us.
>> - How much damage will this do to the internal solver heuristics?
>>> 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
>>> opam-devel mailing list
>>> opam-devel at lists.ocaml.org
>> MirageOS-devel mailing list
>> MirageOS-devel at lists.xenproject.org
> MirageOS-devel mailing list
> MirageOS-devel at lists.xenproject.org
More information about the opam-devel