Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[OSR] Ports-like package management system
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-01-30 (11:15)
From: Bünzli_Daniel <daniel.buenzli@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Ports-like package management system

Le 30 janv. 08 à 09:49, Nicolas Pouillard a écrit :

> You  have a local branch of the whole port hierarchy, that's why  
> we're talking
> about DVCS.

Ok I understand now. So the port hierarchy is centralized and  
versioned that's exactly what I don't like because it is not flexible  
enough, you have to  wait for things to update (e.g. like waiting for  
the 3.10 branch in godi) because package description files support  
only one version.

I don't like the idea of one version per description file, it is not  
flexible enough and having the port hierarchy under vcs doesn't help  
to select a particular version of a port.

The way I see it is

- a package is a list of versions
- a version is a list of files that build themselves with ocamlbuild  
and a specification of dependencies.

Now the tool I seek allows me to specify package dependencies in  
ocamlbuild and take care of their install.

> That's  not  a  baroque  case,  I  mean  if  you are responsible of  
> libFoo and
> progBar,  you  perhaps  want to quickly package progBar using the  
> last version
> of libFoo.

If you don't have a centralized port hierarchy, you don't get these  
problems because you manage your own package description file. In that  
case just add a new version to your package description file and  
publish it. Decentralize the system let anyone publish their own  
package descriptions on their website, use the web.

Le 30 janv. 08 à 10:53, Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :

> Lets choose a very simple storage system. Not a VCS. This too heavy  
> and
> create too many complicated case.