-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 372
2025 Developer Meetings
Next meeting: 10/03/2025 14:00 CET
Agenda:
- look at new issues/PRs in:
- opam
- opam-file-format
- github.com/ocaml-opam/*
- discuss plans for a public meeting
- discuss how to handle the
next/3.0branch - triage old issues/PRs in the above listed repositories
Present: David (@dra27), Kate (@kit-ty-kate), Raja (@rjbou)
The issues up to #6405 and PRs up to #6406 didn't require further discussions
Issue #200 on the removal of prefixes in cmdliner. We use and define opam options having in mind prefixes, having cli versioning too. We want to keep that behaviour, we will see how to: use the environment variable, fork, use internal API, etc.
PR #6393 by default does an hard upgrade. We have the two mechanisms of light and hard upgrade: hard upgrade is a complete lock of opam root to update internal layout, while light upgrade permit to load old opam roots (even if internal files changed) in read only mode, blocking only if a write is needed (by state). This is useful for libraries that uses opam lib and read opam root (e.g. opam-dune-lint), the ones that need to write still need to have the same version for library than binary (e.g. opam-build).
We will try to enforce the rule that no new version of hard upgrade will be defined (last one is 2.0.0~beta5), only add mechanisms that permit light upgrades.
Present: Kate (@kit-ty-kate), Raja (@rjbou)
The issues up to #6395 and PRs up to #6394 didn't require further discussions
- PR #6393:
repos-configsyntaxe & soft/hard update to discuss on next meeting, we took a tour of parser printer used for the new syntax - PR #6394 on adding a job that test opam lib reverse dependencies, see comment
Present: Kate (@kit-ty-kate), Raja (@rjbou)
The issues up to #6387 and PRs up to #6381 didn't require further discussions
Issue #6387 See comment and comment
Issue #6379/#6248 & PR #6256 see comment and issue #6390.
Present: David (@dra27), Kate (@kit-ty-kate), Raja (@rjbou)
The issues up to #6379 and PRs up to #6377 didn't require further discussions
There is no (simple) way to keep a complete working history, and it is not
required for other plugins. The solution we would go for is to just keep the
history and make plugins changes on top of that, like that we have at least a
working git blame. Everything is ready for the split, we pause that until we
see more with opam admin users.
Present: David (@dra27), Kate (@kit-ty-kate), Raja (@rjbou), Ryan (@RyanGibb)
The issues up to #6374 and PRs up to #6377 didn't require further discussions
Related PR: #5982
The current implementation generates a Nix derivation at each install of a
depext that contains all needed depexts by the switch: new ones (opam packages
to install) and old ones (already installed opam packages). This leads to a
rework of the API for handling the current switch state. A proposal for discussion
was done to keep persistent the Nix derivation file in the switch hierarchy and
only update it when a new package is added; but it needs a removal mechanism to
remove already stored Nix packages from that internal install (there is no
simple way to update that internal install, it would be an update of the file).
It is a very delicate issue to remove depexts in other distribution (user
managed system), but for internal ones (Nix, Cygwin) is doable but have its pro
and cons: some think it is preferable as the user has no way to interact with
the internal install, some think that it is as delicate a non internal install
as user may change it. It is
possible to add this functionality at opam remove as it is done now at opam install for system packages install. After some discussions and projections,
we end up by keeping the way it is done currently in the PR (propagate the
information of all needed depext at current state), it may be reused by other
futur depext support, and it won't add the removal complexity (handling
multiswitch system dependencies removal with its own command).
Another review of the PR will be done with that in mind.
No meeting
Present: David (@dra27), Kate (@kit-ty-kate), Raja (@rjbou)
The issues up to #6366 and PRs up to #6367 didn't require further discussions
- Alpha release of ocaml-patch soon, to integrate to opam for 2.4 if released for opam 2.4 release process
- Some exploratory work for reftest splitting, not so trivial for dune
- On
opam adminsplit, we'll try to keep git history, and need to manage how to move issues (different orgs) & PRs (reopen?)
No meeting
Present: David (@dra27), Kate (@kit-ty-kate)
The issues up to #6357 and PRs up to #6343 didn't require further discussions