Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
IMO, a package is absolutely the wrong thing to depend on. Essentially,
a package is an implementation of an interface and depending on
implementations is a bad thing. Code should only depend on interfaces
which are completely independent entities. I suspect that a lo
Thomas Schilling wrote:
apfelmus wrote:
In both cases, the basic idea is that the library user should *not*
think about library versions, he just uses the one that is in
scope on his system.
I think we mean the same thing.
Yes, albeit with the small difference that in my case, the library
On 2 maj 2008, at 11.27, apfelmus wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
Thomas Schilling wrote:
For example, if we write a program that uses the function
'Foo.foo' contained in package 'foo' and we happen to have used
'foo-0.42' for testing of our program. Then, given the
knowledge that 'Foo.
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 00:28 +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On 20 apr 2008, at 22.22, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> [Replying so late as I only saw this today.]
>
> I believe that using tight version constraints in conjunction with
> the PVP to be a good solution. For now.
I think I tend to agree.
On 20 apr 2008, at 22.22, Duncan Coutts wrote:
All,
In the initial discussions on a common architecture for building
applications and libraries one of the goals was to reduce or eliminate
untracked dependencies. The aim being that you could reliably deploy a
package from one machine to another
All,
In the initial discussions on a common architecture for building
applications and libraries one of the goals was to reduce or eliminate
untracked dependencies. The aim being that you could reliably deploy a
package from one machine to another.
We settled on a fairly traditional model, where
