On May 30, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Bernd Dorn wrote:
On 30.05.2007, at 19:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
It's actually worse than that. <2.0 would admit 2.0a1. :) You'd
probably need something like < 1.99.
Even if developers remembered, it would be icky to have to spell
out something like >=3.4 <=3.99 on everwhere.
Using foo2 essentially embeds the major version in the package
name, which doesn't seem so bad to me.
Maybe there is some kind of dependency syntax that reads well that
means "I want this major version". Can you think of a syntax that
is actually nicer than foo2?
maybe it's a good idea to use the same pattern as other
distribution/packaging systems.
so foo2 or even foo21 is ok if you compare it to the name
'python24' in macports or ubuntu
so that means that any incompatible version results in a new
package name, so one could be shure to have a compatible version of
deps e.g. using things like zope.interface.20 without any version
restrictions.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting with the zope.interface.20
example. Are you suggesting that this is the twentieth backward-
incompatible version of zope.interface? Or that this combines a
major and minor version number?
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python
Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
