[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Packaging OCaml repositories that define multiple packages?
From: |
Csepp |
Subject: |
Re: Packaging OCaml repositories that define multiple packages? |
Date: |
Mon, 09 Jan 2023 02:37:55 +0100 |
Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
> Thanks! Yeah, the alias solution was not pretty. Guess I'll use
> inherits and set the package argument.
>
> Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> writes:
>
>> The importer will not support such a package. As you say, it wants to
>> build them separately because they are separate opam packages. So,
>> either we build them separately too, or we build all at once.
>>
>> If we build all at once, that's fine. You could name the package
>> ocaml-mirage and not use any #:package argument. Dune will then build
>> all packages from the repository.
>>
>> One issue with that is that the importer will not know about it and will try
>> to import subpackages again whenever a packages depends on it, instead
>> of using ocaml-mirage.
>>
>> I don't like the alias solution, though it should work, since the importer
>> would see them.
>>
>> Le 8 janvier 2023 15:04:35 GMT+01:00, Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net>
>> a écrit :
>>
>> I'm going through my MirageOS commits for what is hopefully
>> the last
>> time before I send the patches and I realized that a problem that I
>> thought was isolated is a lot more widespread than I thought.
>>
>> As an example look at https://github.com/mirage/mirage/
>>
>> It defines functoria, functoria-runtime, mirage, and mirage-runtime.
>>
>> It is possible to build all 4 as one package.
>>
>> The opam importer seems to not be able to handle situations like this,
>> since it defines a new package for each sub-package.
>>
>> How should I proceed? I definitely want to merge all redundant packages
>> into one, but then what? How should the package description reflect
>> this? What should the package be named when it corresponds to 4 OPAM
>> packages at once?
>>
>> For now I defined a few aliases for cases like this, but I'm not sure if
>> this is ideal. They look like this (made up but possible example):
>> (define ocaml-mirage ocaml-mirage-runtime)
Switching to bottom replying, I hope you don't mind.
So, I converted most definitions to variants, as discussed. That
covered all the packages that I introduced that had subpackages, like
the {mirage,functoria}[-runtime] foursome.
But there are packages that were added by others that already specify
which subpackage they build, and yet seem to be accepted as subpackages.
I worked around these using the somewhat aesthetically unpleasant
aliasing solution.