Le Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jaap Boender wrote: > Bootstrapping is also a problem: I don't know if the problem has been solved > in the meantime, but not too long ago it was impossible to package opam, > because some of the libraries needed to build opam actually used the opam > installer themselves. I had to write my own version of the opam installer to > get around that particular problem. That's a bit strange, I recall that opam's source archive contains opam's dependencies and allows to build them using `make lib-ext` or something like that. I don't recall having problems installing opam2 from source. > It's all well and good to say that 'using opam is the default', but can we > please spare a thought for distribution editors as well? Using ocaml and > friends with the package manager that comes with your distribution is a > reasonable use case, I'd think. The ecosystem has indeed been changing rapidly this year, but in a good way, imho: a lot of people and projects have converged to using `dune` as the build system, and opam2 as the package manager (and project description). Once dune is packaged for a distribution, a lot of OCaml projects should be buildable, I think. -- Simon Cruanes