> On 3 Nov 2016, at 13:01, Daniel Bünzli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday 3 November 2016 at 13:19, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > >> I'm porting cstruct opam packages to topkg, and need to make a backwards >> incompatible change to the ocamlfind layout. It is currently: >> >> cstruct >> cstruct.lwt >> cstruct.ppx >> cstruct.unix >> >> I propose to change these ocamlfind packages to >> >> cstruct >> cstruct-lwt >> cstruct-ppx >> cstruct-unix >> >> so that they are the same as the ocamlfind layout. > I'm not sure what you want to say here, your sentence seems circular.
Sorry there was a typo -- I meant the same as the OPAM layout. > > Is it due to the fact that your are splitting cstruct into multiple OPAM > packages to avoid depopts ? If that's the case why not, it would be more in > line with what odig expects from a package naming perpsective (an OPAM > package equals an odig one). > > Note however that if you'd like to avoid incompatible ocamlfind churn across > all the dependents you can still retain the same ocamlfind layout. Simply > have the cstruct package install a single META file that has the definitions > for all the others and leverage the exists_if ocamlfind directive. > > For example `topkg` and `topkg-care` do this. You have topkg and topkg.care > as ocamlfind packages even though you have topkg and topkg-care as opam > packages see [1]. > > However bear in mind that what topkg does in this case may not be a good idea > for the longer term goal of trying to align opam package names with toplevel > ocamlfind names. Ah yes, very good point. I can do that and avoid a big bump for the moment. It actually might make sense to install META files for cstruct-* as well, to provide a transition path where both names are available for one release (i.e. you can use either cstruct.ppx or cstruct-ppx). Anil _______________________________________________ MirageOS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel
