> On 18 Nov 2013, at 16:45, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote:
>>> ASDF is not going to hard code an
>>> exception for your library.
>> 
>> Closer to MOP already existed before asdf imposed anything on version 
>> numbers, so asdf has to provide a way to define exceptions for such cases. 
>> The versioning scheme of Closer to MOP was ad hoc, because nothing existed 
>> that could have been adhered to. It must be possible for libraries to move 
>> from non-adhering to adhering in a smooth way. Frankly, I don't care how 
>> that's achieved. If I can solve this by adding something to the system 
>> definition, that's fine with me...
> Did your library exist on 20/02/2002? Because that's when
> version-satisfies appeared with its ldo.so-like versioning semantics.

The it was my mistake that I didn't pay attention, and just got lucky that it 
only created a problem two times in almost ten years...

Pascal
> .
> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> Everyone hates a martyr. It's no wonder martyrs were burnt at a stake.
>                — E.W. Howe, "Country Town Sayings", p.7

Reply via email to