Re: ocaml - how can we get more recent version of core-kernel and common ppx'es

[pukkamustard]

Hi Erik,

There has been some work towards updating the OCaml packages in 
Guix (see https://issues.guix.gnu.org/47768).

A lot of packages have been updated so that there is a now an 
updated ocaml-X package for a previously existing ocaml4.07-X 
package. This includes a lot of ppx'es. However not everything has 
been updated yet and there are still a few packages missing to be 
able to update ocaml-core-kernel. But maybe you could use the 
#47768 as a basis and update some packages towards 
ocaml-core-kernel?

Help is also required in reviewing the patches. The series has 
become quite large and hard to review (42 patches). If you could 
try them out that would be great.

-pukkamustard


Erik <erikl@posteo.net> writes:

> Hi, I have a project that requires a more recent core-kernel and 
> some of the
> ppx'es (such as ppx_fields_conv).
>
> Being very new to guix I've managed to add/update packages for 
> python and ruby
> stuff, but this ocaml.scm file is quite different. There's a lot 
> going on which
> I'm guessing is related to complexities arising from the whole 
> ppx transition
> that happened in the ocaml ecosystem a few years ago, or perhaps 
> just to the
> somewhat unsynchronized way libraries move to new versions of 
> the compiler and
> libs (just speculating here).
>
> Anyway afaict (with my limited guix-fu) I would either need to 
> duplicate a whole
> lot of packages or somehow reorganize things to share 
> definitions where it makes
> sense. Both those options would require some coordination with 
> the people who
> made the ocaml.scm infrastructure first, because clearly there 
> are projects out
> there that need the current set of packages to work like they do 
> now and I don't
> want to just post a huge patch that surprises these people.
>
> Can we get a thread going somewhere on adding a recent version 
> of
> ocaml-core-kernel (for the 4.11.1 ocaml package, possibly 
> bumping that 
> to 4.11.2 in the process)?
>
> Best regards,
> Erik Lovlie