7 ms·
My comment was more pointing out that the reason you didn't need to use opam is because you package your dependencies yourself, with rpm. And that most people w
by yawaramin 2y ago
My comment was more pointing out that the reason you didn't need to use opam is because you package your dependencies yourself, with rpm. And that most people won't be doing this because in general there is a large set of packages out there which can potentially be used in the ecosystem, and growing larger day by day. So like I said, it's not scalable for others to do what you're doing and in most cases opam is the way to go.
I am sure you have specialized needs and find that rpm is best suited for them, although I don't see how opam fails to solve this issue either (anyone can maintain their own opam repository with locked down versions of packages to match exactly what they need to ship to their customers), but that's a separate argument.
- rwmj 2y agoWe're shipping more (by value) OCaml software to end users than probably anyone. To say this is "specialized" is absurd. Also opam doesn't do what we need, showing you don't understand the requirements.
- yawaramin 2y agoGuilty as charged, I don't fully understand your requirements because you haven't specified exactly what they are, you've spoken in fairly abstract terms that seem like they should be achievable by a locked-down opam repository. Of course I'm sure now that you have many other requirements which are not achievable by opam, but when I speak about 'specialized' I am thinking about the vast majority of OCaml development and teams, not the 'value' (which I don't doubt, I am sure you are shipping great OCaml software). For example, avionics systems are developed in a specialized way due to rigorous safety requirements, yet they offer critical global value. They're still specialized requirements though because most software is not developed like that.