Re: [Caml-list] Dependencies between plugins

["François Bobot" <francois.bobot@cea.fr>]

On 27/04/2015 11:51, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> François,
>
> I was thinking again about this issue. Introducing a third category
> "shared" in addition to byte and native seems to be a bit odd. Actually,
> what we really want to have is a second dimension plugin/executable in
> addition to the already existing byte/native dimension, so that we can
> have:
>
>   - byte + executable (cmo)
>   - native + executable (cmx)
>   - byte + plugin (cmo, too)
>   - native + plugin (cmxs)
>

This solution represent a more satisfying goal than mine, so even if more META will have to be 
modified at the end it is better.

>
> archive(native) = "..."
>
> as
>
> archive(native,executable) = "..."
>
> if there is no other reference to the executable predicate. This would
> be a special fixup after parsing META. After a transition phase (say,
> two years from now on) we would consider archive(native) as an error.

An error? archive(native) will remain a special case?

> The upcoming META lint will report this issue.

Nice.

>
> This way, the existing META files can still be used for some time,
> including those specifying plugins. There is no hurry in changing this
> detail. However, you are absolutely right that the current use of
> "plugin" breaks the way the predicates are defined, and in the long term
> this is worth fixing.
>

Great! Do you need some help for implementing all of that?

-- 
François