On Wednesday 15 January 2014 11:22:08 Christophe Troestler wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:27:54 +0100, Louis Gesbert wrote: > > > > Indeed, that would break (quite badly) -- Thomas thought that the url file > > already supported (unused) archive lists, but that must have been removed > > at some point. > > If it's very important to have this now, I can modify the patch so that it > > only changes the repo in a 1.1.0-compatible way, by adding a `mirror` field > > instead of changing the current type of the `archive` and similar fields. I > > tend to think that the smoothness of upgrade may be worth the slightly less > > clear resulting file format. > > > > Any opinions on this ? The problem still exists even if we shift that after > > release. > > Does it break if we allow several archive fields?
The OPAM file formats in general don't allow duplicated fields, so we would need to add a deeper-rooted exception for this. As we are not _that_ hurried, 1.1.1 will be without that patch so that the repo migration can be done properly. _______________________________________________ Platform mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
