{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam/issues/2815","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam/issues/2815/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam/issues/2815/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam/issues/2815/events","html_url":"https://github.com/ocaml/opam/issues/2815","id":199438563,"number":2815,"title":"`ocamlfind remove` shouldn't be called in parallel","user":{"login":"ygrek","id":104087,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/104087?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek","html_url":"https://github.com/ygrek","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ygrek/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2017-01-08T18:53:17Z","updated_at":"2017-01-09T19:39:43Z","closed_at":"2017-01-09T09:15:23Z","body":"See https://gitlab.camlcity.org/gerd/lib-findlib/issues/9\r\nArguably, this should be fixed on ocamlfind side, but with the current state of things I believe opam should avoid calling `ocamlfind remove` in parallel."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam/issues/comments/271385925","html_url":"https://github.com/ocaml/opam/issues/2815#issuecomment-271385925","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ocaml/opam/issues/2815","id":271385925,"user":{"login":"samoht","id":103693,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/103693?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht","html_url":"https://github.com/samoht","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/samoht/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2017-01-09T19:39:43Z","updated_at":"2017-01-09T19:39:43Z","body":"@AltGr is this a regression somewhere? I remember that I tried to make the install/uninstall step sequential in the initial design, because of that issue with ocamlfind. Could it be that the `light-uninstall` packages got \"optimised\" the wrong way?"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"samoht"}}