I fixed it. It was the package specification order. :(

I wish there were a warning about that in the compiler output that mentions
the lack of implementation that the compiler sees.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller <
kennethadammiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm using OCamlMakefile (rather the library that I'm editing uses it, and
> I have to use it consequently), and I need to add some package dependencies
> in order to recompile each while developing locally before I ship my
> changes to opam. Basically, I've added the core and core_kernel packages to
> these libraries to make some functions tail recursive. But it's turning out
> that using OCamlMakefile has made it more difficult than it sounds.
>
> A is consumed by B, but both must be installed for them to be usable on
> the target machine. Currently, you can do an opam install A B and it will
> work.  A has been successfully edited and subsequently recompiled to
> consume core and core_kernel as it needs to. I was even able to opam pin
> the package to get it working locally.
>
> B consumes A, but weirdly, B complains of the following when I try to make
> it:
>
> Error: No implementations provided for the following modules:
>          Core_kernel referenced from /path/to/(A)
>          Core referenced from /path/to/(A)
>
> I noted that in Stack Overflow that there were some issues with casing for
> package names when you built stuff. This is strange because when I was
> compiling A, it worked fine. I changed the casing to A instead of a in the
> OCamlMakefile export PACKS= line, and it failed, unable to find the package
> A.
>
> So, A compiles just fine, but B refuses. I tried to change B to specify
> various combinations of casing of core (as in: PACKS+=core vs PACKS+=Core)
> but that failed too.
>
> So now I don't know how to get B to compile using OCamlMakefile.
>
>