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

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 02:56:40PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
> > 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.

Exactly, I think this is correct.  However, in the real world, people
tend to fuck things up and it could be necessary to require an exact
egg version if newer versions somehow do break compat.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth

pgpdIpzZO9Sue.pgp
Description: PGP signature