[opam-devel] Multiple names for the same switch (aliases that are really aliases)
dra-news at metastack.com
Fri Dec 30 21:52:13 GMT 2016
In opam 2.0, it should definitely be possible to do it with a kind of dummy package which has a version constraint on the underlying OCaml package holding the appropriate ocaml package below the next version (e.g. < 4.03.0 for the 4.02 channel – there might be a cleverer constraint than that even, IIRC). Each major version would correspond to a version of the package (say ocaml-branch.4.02 or something) which you’d then pin at that version. A neat side-effect is that if a new maintenance release were made, the switch would be upgradable. It would also not require maintenance, beyond adding new major release versions.
It’s not aliases, but would it do what you’re after? All of that’s impossible in OPAM 1.x – the best bet there would be to have an opam-admin script which can process the compilers directory and re-generate the branch packages (something similar to Anil’s script for the GPRs).
PS My strange patching work means I do keenly remember all point releases since 3.07 – who released 4.03.1 without telling me ;o)
From: opam-devel [mailto:opam-devel-bounces at lists.ocaml.org] On Behalf Of Gabriel Scherer
Sent: 30 December 2016 17:07
To: opam-devel at lists.ocaml.org
Subject: [opam-devel] Multiple names for the same switch (aliases that are really aliases)
A few weeks ago I discussed with Jeremy Yallop the idea of having switches for major OCaml versions (4.01, 4.02, 4.03...) that would point to the currently-best minor version of them (do you remember? 4.01.0, 4.02.3, 4.03.1).
I would be willing to invest the effort of doing that and maintaining this mapping, but I feel that just creating new switches is too heavy-handed to be useful. If I already have a 4.02.3 switch, I would like "opam switch 4.02" to bring me to that switch, not install a new, distinct one with name 4.02 that would in fact install the same compiler as 4.02.3.
Do I correctly understand that this feature is not possible in OPAM 1.2.x? (If it is, I may do it.)
Is it possible in 2.x?
(Louis: I do distinctly remember your call to try out 2.x at ICFP and I feel guilty about not having done much yet. Apologies.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the opam-devel