Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

[felix winkelmann]

>
> I think he did too. But is you're view of fine-grained a bit 'reversed' ?

Probably.

>
> If you say you want foo-1, and *if* that library is done such that minor
> version increases are backward-compatible in the same major number,
> isn't it more naturall to request foo-1 and then get the highest minor
> number than requesting foo then have the higher overall number ?
>
> (since higher major numbers are more likely to break compatibility
> than higher minor numbers)
>
> In other words, foo-1.1 and foo-1.2 are the same library, while
> foo-1.0 and foo-2.0 are too different. If I make a mistake here, I guess
> we could have some guidelines on the semantic of version numbers...
>

No, I'd say you are quite right.


cheers,
felix