shym

I’ve updated the PR to OCaml 5.2.0 as it was released last week. Note: I’ve reverted to depend on the `ocaml` package (as it was before) rather than a precise...

I’ve just updated the patches to the compiler so that it contains the patches that are already integrated upstream and in the version integrated upstream: it will make it much...

I rebased on `main`. `git range-diff bd6b8dfecdd2..0b3b7ff7ae4dc8 b993ec677dcb31..99c2ea45405e82` is as expected pointing only the commits changing CI.

Thank you for all the feedback and sorry for the latency. > I think you can remove the pin now, and depend on >= 0.9.0... Indeed! Done. And CI approves!...

> then the question is: 5.2.1 support? 5.3? what should we target with an initial merge and release? Maybe we could indeed skip 5.2.0 now that 5.2.1 is released. I’ll...

> relying on `ocaml-src` is a better long-term solution. Digging around (in particular mirage/mirage-platform#157), I see that two solutions seem to coexist to find `ocaml-src`: the `opam var ocaml-src:lib` I’ve...

Rebased after the merge of #141 to fix the shellcheck-reported errors.

I updated the branch so that it relies on `ocaml-src` to get the compiler sources and `ocamlfind` to find those sources. It also now provides an implementation of `strerror_r` as...

I updated the PR with 5.2.1 support (with a temporary overlay for `ocaml-src`). I plan to drop 5.2.0 when `ocaml-src.5.2.1` is available in your nearest opam repo.

> is this then fine to merge? as far as I can tell, the reviews are addressed (apart from the minor [#134 (comment)](https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-solo5/pull/134#discussion_r1847343254))? I rebased and dropped what had to...