"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Maybe I should do COPR builds of all this so everybody can easily see
>> what I'm talking about? I did a total of 63 package builds in mock,
>> many of them simple rebuilds, so it will take a little time to get
>> that going. Do we know yet what the timeframe is for an ocaml 4.11
>> release?
>
> This is all great stuff, and I think it also makes me wonder how we
> can make OCaml packaging simpler in Fedora.
>
> RPM has a new %generate_buildrequires feature which we might utilise
> (driven from the opam package metadata, I guess?). I would also like
> to drop the whole ocaml-pkg vs ocaml-pkg-devel split, it's confusing
> and not necessary. And maybe we could look at some kind of opam2spec
> scripting, similar to cpanspec. Of course the devil is in the details
> because unless we can mostly automate packaging, we could end up with
> something that's even more complicated to deal with the exceptional
> cases.
Thanks for bringing this up Rich, I was actually thinking about this for
quite a while now after getting involved in OCaml packaging a bit.
I would suggest the following: we introduce a new Provides for ocaml
packages: Opam($pkg-name) = 1.2.3
I would propose that the ocaml provides generator takes care of adding
this to the devel package. This shouldn't be really hard to pull off, it
would just need to find the opam file and grep for the version.
%generate_buildrequires could be used to parse the opam file from the
tarball and extract the dependent opam packages from the depends:
array. E.g. the following:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
depends: [
"ocaml" {>= "4.04.2"}
"base" {>= "v0.13" & < "v0.14"}
"dune" {>= "1.5.1"}
]
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
would translate to:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
BuildRequires: Opam(ocaml) >= 4.04.2
BuildRequires: Opam(base) >= 0.13 and Opam(base) < 0.14
BuildRequires: Opam(dune) >= 1.5.1
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
The hypothetical opam2spec would be certainly also a huge improvement,
as I think that most ocaml packages could be completely autogenerated.
But as you already said, the devil is most likely in the details, so
maybe we should start collecting ideas and potential pitfalls first? I
have therefore also cc'd Olaf, who takes care of Ocaml in
openSUSE. I would hope that we can coordinate our efforts, as Olaf has
some pretty nice ocaml macros that automatically generate file lists for
the subpackages (thereby already simplifying packaging quite a bit).
And at last I'd like to throw in a (probably quite controversial) idea:
how about we move ocaml into a module? Not to be able to have multiple
ocaml versions as streams, but so that we can use MBS to automatically
untangle the bootstrap loops for us. I was totally not aware of this
feature of MBS, but it was mentioned by Stephen in this email:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/NY7RTBTCHF2IVWMWJ6JG2RQZVW5EZDRB/
So, what do you think about all this?
Cheers,
Dan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
