On Feb 11, 2007, at 0:12 , Robin Green wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:37:04 +0100
Bjorn Bringert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've also recently changed the version number scheme on most of the
packages I maintain (which includes most of the packages required by
Hope) from a date-based one to a major.minor scheme. This has the
unfortunate side-effect of making newer versions have smaller
version numbers than older ones, but it felt silly to start with a
major version number of 2008. That might have been a bad decision.
The rPath Linux package management tool, conary, has a nice
solution to the problem that software version numbers have
inconsistent lexical ordering conventions between projects and
sometimes
within the same project. It does not compare version numbers at all,
and (as far as I can tell) asks the package repository for the most
recent package, unless you specify a particular version. Perhaps Cabal
could do something similar?
Of course, this way you can't express "I want version >= 1.2" which is
kind of a bummer.
Yeah, that would make specifying dependencies a bit of a drag. I
think I'll just rerelease all the packages as version 3000.0.0 or
something. Who cares if the version numbers look silly?
/Björn_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
