Hello, It seems we sometimes need to let package expose some of their configuration abilities to end-user (case in point nocrypto using the cpu extensions or not).
It should also be easier to define per switch configuration variables (which e.g. may help the recent non-discussion about windows ports and cross-compilation). Since I was thinking about how this could be integrated with assemblage this lead me to write down a proposal here: https://github.com/ocaml/opam/issues/2247 I'm really not fond of the input/output configuration variable naming scheme I used, maybe user/state configuration variable would be better ? Feedback welcome, Daniel _______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
