> 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
