Re: [Caml-list] Opam improvement request

[SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>]

> I don't want to manage specification files, …

I propose to take another look around consequences for such a wish.


> And that's because I don't care if I have even 20 times as much space consumed
> by opam because opam is keeping old states.

Are there any circumstances under which you would start to care
(or become concerned about corresponding storage allocation challenges)?


> All I'm saying is I don't want to have some dependency version mismatch
> cause the current system to become inoperable, …

I can generally follow such a desire to some degree.
But safe dependency management can also require to express expectations
for system properties in precise ways, can't it?

Would you like to fiddle with application binary interfaces?


> Again, opam packages change all the time, and if you don't regularly stay
> up to date, it's really easy to get downwind of drastic changes;
> leaping many versions for a given package can trigger the kinds of
> unexpected breaks that I'm talking about.

There are more challenges to consider from usual software evolution.


> It makes sense to me to think of opam package installs as being in a kind of
> git staging area, where I can consider them tentatively and test it against
> a particular package, but easily and quickly revert back to other built packages

You might stumble on target conflicts which will make it harder to find
and agree on a solution.


> (without needing to rebuild something again unnecessarily) that I know are working.
It can take a while until it is noticed that something is finally not working
as expected, can't it?

Regards,
Markus

-- 
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list https://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs