Yeah, after some thought I agree with you and Fabrice. Even though it'll take a few years to percolate through, having the right semantics in the core tool is more important than a transitionary period. It wont cost much to maintain two copies of important plugins.
One thing I noticed is that the automatic plugin installation doesn't play well with non-interactivity (e.g. -y), btw. -anil > On 19 Aug 2015, at 10:56, Louis Gesbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Allowing plugins with packages named `opam-xxx` in opam 1.3 sure won't cost > much. I don't see a good reason not to add it now even if it can't be used in > a while. > >> - Fabrice Le Fessant, 19/08/2015 11:49 - >> 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). > > "search" is already an opam command :) > _______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
