I think it's worth doing it, even if we also keep the old logic for
compatilibility for a few years from now, until Ubuntu LTS is dead.
Otherwise, we will either have to limit opam plugin names to avoid
conflicts with existing packages (for example, "cache" is already a
package, preventing "opam-cache", etc.), either to reserve names for
possible plugins ("search", "file", "git", etc).--Fabrice On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Anil Madhavapeddy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 18 Aug 2015, at 06:09, Fabrice Le Fessant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Anil Madhavapeddy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sounds fine to me. It's too late to enforce the "opam-" prefix in the >>> package name unfortunately. >> >> Why is it too late ? If I understand correctly, when you type "opam >> xxx", opam tries to install the "xxx" package if it does not match an >> existing command ? We could have a transition period where depext >> exists as both opam-depext and depext packages, no ? > > I meant that it would be cleaner if OPAM's plugin logic had searched for > "opam-foo" rather than "foo" in the first place. It's odd to have OPAM > packages called "publish" and "depext" instead of "opam-publish" and > "opam-depext", but not the end of the world. It's too late to change the > logic now since OPAM 1.2.x will be in Ubuntu LTS for some years, and so > the transition period would be several years even if we push OPAM 1.3.0 > out of the door in the next month... > > -anil > -- Fabrice LE FESSANT Chercheur en Informatique INRIA Paris Rocquencourt -- OCamlPro Programming Languages and Distributed Systems _______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
