Re: [MirageOS-devel] sexplib v0.9.0 breakage of MirageOS unikernels (xen & solo5)

[Sebastien Mondet <sebastien.mondet@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> So, how should we move forward here?  My current favourite is 3 or 4.
> (1) split universe, constrain to sexplib <= 113.33
> (2) adapt base to freestanding&xen
> (3) re-develop a dependency-free sexplib
> (4) get rid of sexplib converters

We could also ask the Sexplib maintainers if the Base dependency is a
hard one.  I'm CCing Jeremie Dimino -- is it possible to relax this for
Sexplib so that it can be as dependency-free as previous versions are?

The discussion kind-of started there: https://github.com/janestreet/ppx_inline_test/issues/7

 

I don't think a hard Base dependency is practical right now -- we do
need some time to evaluate it and to check how it interacts with LTO.
It is promising since it uses module aliases throughout, but we haven't
tested it at all in this regard.

Anil

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

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