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
$ opam switch create . ocaml.5.1.2 --ignore-constraints-on ocaml
The following additional pinnings are required by tryocaml.0.10:
- js_of_ocaml.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-compiler.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-lwt.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-ppx.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-tyxml.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- ocp-indent-nlfork.1.5.4 at git+https://[email protected]/OCamlPro/ocp-indent.git#nlfork
Pin and install them? [Y/n] n
Try to install anyway, assuming `--ignore-pin-depends'? [Y/n] y
tryocaml is now pinned to git+file:///home/lg/ocamlpro/tryocaml#tryocaml (version 0.10)
The following additional pinnings are required by tryocaml.0.10:
- js_of_ocaml.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-compiler.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-lwt.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-ppx.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- js_of_ocaml-tyxml.3.10.1 at git+https://github.com/AltGr/js_of_ocaml#fix-bytecode
- ocp-indent-nlfork.1.5.4 at git+https://[email protected]/OCamlPro/ocp-indent.git#nlfork
Pin and install them? [Y/n] n
Try to install anyway, assuming `--ignore-pin-depends'? [Y/n] y
I'd be best not to ask the question twice
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This behaviour comes from f3f9083 which uses handle_extra_pins (since renamed handled_pin_depends) in bothsource_pin and autopin (which itself uses source_pin), so the question is asked twice if the packages are not already pinned.
In my opinion it looks like the second call in autopin was a simple oversight so removing it should be just fine (so far testing seems to indicate no problem). Do you remember why this was done?
Indeed I was expecting something like that... but I'm sorry I don't remember why the second autopin could have been necessary :/
Thanks for the quick fix! @rjbou might have more insight ?
Transcript:
I'd be best not to ask the question twice
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: