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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CC67F75C for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:55:52 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of agarwal1975@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.216.174; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="agarwal1975@gmail.com"; x-sender="agarwal1975@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of agarwal1975@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.216.174; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="agarwal1975@gmail.com"; x-sender="agarwal1975@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-qc0-f174.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.216.174; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="agarwal1975@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-qc0-f174.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApYDAKBh/lPRVdiulGdsb2JhbABbg2BXBIJ4gRzIEIdPAYELCBYQAQEBAQcLCwkSK4QDAQEBAwESER0BGx0BAwELBgUEBw0qAgIhAQERAQUBHAYTIogLAQMJCA2fD2uLK4FygxCJKgoZJw1mhFgRAQEEDo0RgikEB4J5gVMFlVyEbIIQjmOERRgphSshL4JPAQEB X-IPAS-Result: ApYDAKBh/lPRVdiulGdsb2JhbABbg2BXBIJ4gRzIEIdPAYELCBYQAQEBAQcLCwkSK4QDAQEBAwESER0BGx0BAwELBgUEBw0qAgIhAQERAQUBHAYTIogLAQMJCA2fD2uLK4FygxCJKgoZJw1mhFgRAQEEDo0RgikEB4J5gVMFlVyEbIIQjmOERRgphSshL4JPAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,414,1406584800"; d="scan'208";a="91772730" Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 28 Aug 2014 00:55:29 +0200 Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id i17so149105qcy.5 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:55:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=m0pB6tNGoQhLsyV+NOnhEpNhdi7k7WO45wccjesf+4s=; b=yNVV/Nc9x27i1dqBRaFjQcYD9zqfNsbnuUDI8HC+l1FOmYtF8pjFkml9qll9oNMuoX 1Fo2oj8kTnKvVGIFgVG8H6CyToj3h1TWNEjyAdKOpZVKaf9fl5FKUw083W0BDDc/L39n X4z7EqgnoMRACSYLEraS13SF/nKgujhdZfHRreY52RhexK6BOuiWSrcwCgNKZVef8hXg KgifbPjvXDNy4Ok1tiW/Reg0MlebAqvSNUM3aJyfm7kMK4xBQ7CWaDBKkYv1BqQP90Wv gzCKyBi8SS434GR3enPvgR1h6R7Gy8DRIi4e5N9yRgMgCRuM69mu8IXVOPbfDDsSX9TU Lr2w== X-Received: by 10.224.65.196 with SMTP id k4mr310993qai.56.1409180126522; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:55:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.138.15 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Ashish Agarwal Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:55:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: Martin DeMello Cc: OCaml List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2cb30ddb6da0501a4501b Subject: Re: [Caml-list] is this an opam bug or something i'm doing wrong? --001a11c2cb30ddb6da0501a4501b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Martin DeMello wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Ashish Agarwal > wrote: > >> >> Maybe you're saying this because 0.1.0 isn't listed in the >> available-versions field, but that field filters out versions you already >> have installed (in any switch). This always confuses me and think >> available-versions should just list all versions. >> > > I'd definitely like to see that change! As a user the current way is very > confusing. > I submitted a feature wish: https://github.com/ocaml/opam/issues/1660 --001a11c2cb30ddb6da0501a4501b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.c= om> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Ashish Agarwal <aga= rwal1975@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe you're saying this because 0.1.0 isn't li= sted in the available-versions field, but that field filters out versions y= ou already have installed (in any switch). This always confuses me and thin= k available-versions should just list all versions.

I'd definitely= like to see that change! As a user the current way is very confusing.

I submitted a feature w= ish:

--001a11c2cb30ddb6da0501a4501b--