Hi, I’m the maintainer of Closer to MOP, and I have just updated the version numbers as you describe below. If I made a mistake and chose a numbering scheme that confuses ASDF, please let me know, and I will fix this. However, I believe what I chose is in line with the ASDF documentation.
Previously, the version numbers for Closer to MOP lacked a third entry (“patch version”), maybe this is a confusing change? Pascal On 17 Nov 2013, at 10:34, Anton Vodonosov <avodono...@yandex.ru> wrote: > Hello. > > Has the semantics of :depends-on with :version > specified for the dependency changed recently? > > I am asking, because I observe problems in several libraries. > > For example, moptilities. > > moptilities.asd has :depends-on ((:version :closer-mop "0.55")) > > In Quicklisp 2013-11-11 closer-mop is updated, now its ASDF > system has :version "1.0.0" > > Now moptilities fails to load on many lisps > (clisp, ccl-1.8, ccl-1.8, ecl, sbcl-1.1.0.36). > > The error is MISSING-DEPENDENCY-OF-VERSION: > Component :CLOSER-MOP does not match version 0.55, required by #<SYSTEM > "moptilities"> > > But on sbcl-1.1.11 moptilities load OK. > This is a relatively recent SBCL, so I assume > it has newer ASDF than many other lisps. > And probably that's why it it can load moptilities. > > Also interesting, that in the previous Quicklisp > closer-mop version was "0.61". And moptilities, > which depend on closer-mop "0.55" was loaded successfully > by many lisps which now fail. > > Test results for moptilities for the current and previous > Quiclisp may be found here: > http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/library/moptilities.html > > Moptilities is only on example, there are other libraries > affected by this problem. > > So, my question is: how :depends-on ((:version ...)) > should work, and is the change in the behavior intentional? > > Best regards, > - Anton > > > > > > > -- Pascal Costanza