From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883317ED25 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:20:47 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=pra; client-ip=89.16.177.154; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=89.16.177.154; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@dark.recoil.org) identity=helo; client-ip=89.16.177.154; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="postmaster@dark.recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkkHAKTt61FZELGaY2dsb2JhbABagzutRJM7gSwDGBUGPoIkAQEEAXIHBQsFBg4KLlcGExGHeQoItgwEkBYHgxBuA5ddlGA7 X-IPAS-Result: AkkHAKTt61FZELGaY2dsb2JhbABagzutRJM7gSwDGBUGPoIkAQEEAXIHBQsFBg4KLlcGExGHeQoItgwEkBYHgxBuA5ddlGA7 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,713,1367964000"; d="scan'208";a="21823052" Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk (HELO dark.recoil.org) ([89.16.177.154]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 21 Jul 2013 16:20:46 +0200 Received: (qmail 11509 invoked by uid 634); 21 Jul 2013 14:20:45 -0000 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Check-By: dark.recoil.org Received: from cpc7-cmbg14-2-0-cust238.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com (HELO [192.168.1.84]) (86.30.244.239) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:20:44 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Anil Madhavapeddy X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <7b4c87b5d9aa76728e239f0a2172b795.squirrel@gps.dynxs.de> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:20:42 +0100 Cc: r.3@libertysurf.fr, caml-list@inria.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <6796313D-9F02-4C70-87D9-8DC9BC896028@recoil.org> References: <383739793.214096184.1374254520546.JavaMail.root@zimbra27-e5.priv.proxad.net> <7b4c87b5d9aa76728e239f0a2172b795.squirrel@gps.dynxs.de> To: "Gerd Stolpmann" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org Subject: Re: [Caml-list] opam and godi On 21 Jul 2013, at 14:54, "Gerd Stolpmann" wrote: > >> Hello, >> could someone explain please the relation between godi and opam ? Is it >> concurrent ? >> Godi has been there for some time, and works quite nicely. So what are >> differences ? > > Hi, > > both are independent projects. OPAM is a younger project, and I don't > really know what the motivation behind it is (in addition to the generic > motication to hack something). There were initially claims to make it is > easier to package software up, but what I've seen is actually not much > different from GODI (actually even worse now that GODI allows it to fully > automate package releases). The answer's right there on the front page: "OPAM is a source-based package manager for OCaml. It supports multiple simultaneous compiler installations, flexible package constraints, and a Git-friendly development workflow." > The feature sets are not the same, and some stuff works better in OPAM and > some in GODI. As I'm advocating the latter, let me point out some features > where I think GODI is better: Feature minutiae aside, I'd say the biggest benefit of OPAM is the more open development workflow. It's easier for people to maintain their own branches and contribute changes to the central repository. Let's look at the stable repository "pulse": https://github.com/OCamlPro/opam-repository/pulse/monthly It tells us that in the last month, there have been 30 authors that have pushed 167 package updates. These have all come in as pull requests that can still be browsed. For example, see the latest Core from Jane Street: https://github.com/OCamlPro/opam-repository/pulls?state=closed Several development groups also maintain their own remotes without any need to depend on the central repository. For example, see Citrix's: https://github.com/xapi-project/opam-repo-dev/tree/master/packages As Gerd points out, GODI is an older and more mature project. I find OPAM more useful for my own personal development workflow though. You should try both out and see which one you prefer. cheers, Anil