Skip to content

Auto-detect ppx_sexp_conv runtime dependencies - #146

Closed
ghost wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
unknown repository
Closed

Auto-detect ppx_sexp_conv runtime dependencies#146
ghost wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
unknown repository

Conversation

@ghost

@ghost ghost commented May 11, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This PR allows to automatically detect the runtime dependencies of ppx_sexp_conv in order to store them in the META file. This allows ocaml-nocrypto to be compatible with both ppx_sexp_conv < v0.11 and >= v0.11.

The method used should work with any ppx rewriter, not just ppx_sexp_conv.

@hannesm

hannesm commented May 23, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

thanks @diml, I looked into this locally, and discovered that this expands on my system to base.caml base.shadow_stdlib sexplib0 base ppx_sexp_conv.runtime-lib result ppx_deriving.runtime -- this means ppx_sexp_conv depends at runtime on base (similar to sexplib=v0.11.0), is this the desired behaviour (again, similar to sexplib, this is not a good option for MirageOS due to binary size)!?

@hannesm

hannesm commented May 23, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

oops, sorry, please ignore my comment, I was stuck with a sexplib v0.11.0, upgrading to v0.11.1 solved this issue.

@samoht

samoht commented May 23, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Maybe we don't need to add this complexity to the build system and depend unconditionally on the latest version of ppx_sexp_conv?

@copy

copy commented May 26, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@samoht That's what #144 does.

copy added a commit to copy/opam-repository that referenced this pull request May 26, 2018
ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.0 compiles successfully, but contains an undesired
dependency on base, and is thus still marked as conflicting. This is
fixed in ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.1.

This commit submits @gasche's fixes from
mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#144 and @diml's fixes
from mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#146
copy added a commit to copy/opam-repository that referenced this pull request May 27, 2018
ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.0 compiles successfully, but contains an undesired
dependency on base, and is thus still marked as conflicting. This is
fixed in ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.1.

This commit submits @gasche's fixes from
mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#144 and @diml's fixes
from mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#146
copy added a commit to copy/opam-repository that referenced this pull request May 27, 2018
ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.0 compiles successfully, but contains an undesired
dependency on base, and is thus still marked as conflicting. This is
fixed in ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.1.

This commit submits @gasche's fixes from
mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#144 and @diml's fixes
from mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#146
copy added a commit to copy/opam-repository that referenced this pull request Jun 26, 2018
ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.0 compiles successfully, but contains an undesired
dependency on base, and is thus still marked as conflicting. This is
fixed in ppx_sexp_conv v0.11.1.

This commit submits @gasche's fixes from
mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#144 and @diml's fixes
from mirleft/ocaml-nocrypto#146
@hcarty

hcarty commented Aug 17, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Where does this patch/fix stand currently? From what I can see, the current state in opam prevents the use of ppxlib and nocrypto (and therefore tls) in the same project.

@copy

copy commented Aug 17, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Where does this patch/fix stand currently? From what I can see, the current state in opam prevents the use of ppxlib and nocrypto (and therefore tls) in the same project.

The patches are in opam now, so nocrypto and ppxlib can be used together. The tls issue is being tracked here: mirleft/ocaml-tls#379, and we need to summon @hannesm for that.

@hcarty

hcarty commented Aug 17, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thank you @copy!

@cfcs

cfcs commented Feb 5, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown

master got rid of the sexp stuff now, so I think this PR can be closed? a58c653

@XVilka

XVilka commented Sep 15, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Ping? Sounds like indeed should be closed.

@ghost

ghost commented Sep 16, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Sure, let's close this

@ghost ghost closed this Sep 16, 2019
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants