You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If I run make dev-deps in a project that requires a specific version of OCaml, drom will install
all the dev dependencies in the current opam switch without checking that the version of OCaml is correct.
There is an inconsistency between build-deps and dev-deps. The former creates a local switch if it does not already exist. The latter installs everything in the current switch.
I guess that the expected usage is to run these commands:
make build-deps
eval $(opam env)
make dev-deps
This workflow has several issues:
We have to call opam env, which is very annoying and even worse on Windows...
Sometimes dev-deps will introduce more constraints on packages installed by build-deps, so we have to recompile them again...
It is counterintuitive that dev-deps is not an extension of build-deps.
In my opinion, we should:
Emit an error if the minimal edition of the toml file is not satisfied by the current switch.
Create a local switch with dev-deps too with the edition version of OCaml for instance.
Only use a local switch and wrap every calls of opam to ensure that we only modify this local switch.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If I run
make dev-deps
in a project that requires a specific version of OCaml, drom will installall the dev dependencies in the current opam switch without checking that the version of OCaml is correct.
There is an inconsistency between
build-deps
anddev-deps
. The former creates a local switch if it does not already exist. The latter installs everything in the current switch.I guess that the expected usage is to run these commands:
This workflow has several issues:
opam env
, which is very annoying and even worse on Windows...dev-deps
will introduce more constraints on packages installed bybuild-deps
, so we have to recompile them again...dev-deps
is not an extension ofbuild-deps
.In my opinion, we should:
dev-deps
too with the edition version of OCaml for instance.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: