Re: [MirageOS-devel] breaking up cstruct packages

[Daniel Bünzli <daniel.buenzli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 3 November 2016 at 13:19, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:

> I'm porting cstruct opam packages to topkg, and need to make a backwards 
> incompatible change to the ocamlfind layout. It is currently:
> 
> cstruct
> cstruct.lwt
> cstruct.ppx
> cstruct.unix
> 
> I propose to change these ocamlfind packages to 
> 
> cstruct
> cstruct-lwt
> cstruct-ppx
> cstruct-unix
> 
> so that they are the same as the ocamlfind layout. 
I'm not sure what you want to say here, your sentence seems circular. 

Is it due to the fact that your are splitting cstruct into multiple OPAM 
packages to avoid depopts ? If that's the case why not, it would be more in 
line with what odig expects from a package naming perpsective (an OPAM package 
equals an odig one). 

Note however that if you'd like to avoid incompatible ocamlfind churn across 
all the dependents you can still retain the same ocamlfind layout. Simply have 
the cstruct package install a single META file that has the definitions for all 
the others and leverage the exists_if ocamlfind directive. 

For example `topkg` and `topkg-care` do this. You have topkg and topkg.care as 
ocamlfind packages even though you have topkg and topkg-care as opam packages 
see [1]. 

However bear in mind that what topkg does in this case may not be a good idea 
for the longer term goal of trying to align opam package names with toplevel 
ocamlfind names. 

Best, 

Daniel

[1] 
https://github.com/dbuenzli/topkg/blob/09f992da454e25be8e1f1bdeacf409eacb9d2e2b/pkg/META

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel