Le mercredi, 7 mars 2012 à 16:58, Edgar Friendly a écrit : > > IMHO a package should be identified by a name and version. > > I've been thinking about this for a long time, and the full consequences > of this involve not only deep changes to odb internals, but also expose > the code to a ton more edge cases that need to be handled, as well as > possibly some NP-hard problems of resolving version dependencies. Odb > may go this way if needed, but the current practice of having a single > string as the package identifier is sufficient for my use, so...
Yes, I understand that. I fear there's dependency hell waiting around the corner, but maybe this can be mitigated by implementing that idea of being able to easily specify your own package source in ~/.odb/packages. Well, in fact you can already do that locally by crafting your own ~/.odb/packages file. So maybe your approach is the right balancing act between usability and complexity. > You're more than welcome to fork and build a better odb. I may even > steal any good ideas you have and put them back in my odb. :) If I get too annoyed with too much time on my hands (i.e. very unlikely) I may eventually do that. Thanks for the answers and the tool, Daniel -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
