-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> In thinking about how we might specify that we want to depend on
> major versions but sometimes need to specify minimum versions, the
> following occurred to me:
>
> - Suppose that we always had access to the latest released version,
>
> - Suppose that, within a major release, all releases were backward
> compatible,
>
> Then I assert that there is no *need* to specify a minimum release
> within a major release.
>
> Consider an example:
>
> I depend on foo 2 (foo >=2 <2.999). Now foo 2.5 introduces a new
> feature and I use this feature. In reality, I now depend on version
> 2.5 or higher (and <2.999). I shouldn't need to specify this. After
> all, I'll always get new releases. Why wouldn't I? Well, I might
> also depend on bar and bar might depend on foo <=2.4. Why would bar
> do this? The only sane reason is that 2.5 introduced a backward-
> incompatible change, but we don't allow that. If we don't have to
> worry about backward incompatible changes within a major release
> cycle, then there is no reason to set an upper limit and therefore,
> there is no *practical* need to specify a lower limit.
>
> Combined with the fact that that great majority of packages don't
> change very much after they have become stable, I think most package
> dependencies could be expressed very simply if there was a simple
> syntax to specify *just* the major version. In the context of
> setuptools, I think "*" could be used, as has been suggested, but
> without leading =s. So, to specify foo version 2, I think the
> following syntax would be very reasonable:
>
> foo 2*
>
> This wouldn't prevent someone from specifying a minimum version. For
> example, to combine this with a minimum requirement of 2.5:
>
> foo 2* >=2.5
>
> If people like these ideas, I'd be willing to lobby for them on the
> distutils sig, especially if I have help. :)
>
> Note that the proposal would be that, a specification of the form if
> a version number followed by a * would be equivalent to a range:
>
> "project_name V*" is equivalent project_name "V.*" is equivalent
> to "project_name >=V <V.99999"
>
> (Or maybe equivalent to "project_name >=V.dev <=V.99999".)
>
> Also note that It's not clear that the * is needed.
>
> "foo 2" isn't a valid specification. We *could* extend the
> requirements language to allow a project name followed by a version
> number. So:
>
> "prject_name V" is equivalent to "project_name >=V <V.99999".
I'd rather have the dot, e.g. "foo 2.* >= 2.5", just for clarity:
- It makes the intent clearer (that you want any version in the
"two dot" release line).
- It disambiguates the case where the version number might have
double digits (e.g, '0.1' vs. '0.10').
Another feature I'm not sure is already in setuptools:
- I *don't* want dev releases to replace production ones
implicitly: no package should be able to install a non-released
version without explicit callout. If this isn't already the
default behavior, then I'd like syntax for spelling it.
Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGXuKo+gerLs4ltQ4RArrWAJwMowPxfb95Jl7oAUCZUQCRD7o8kQCcD9+G
kGpfoL51tpgWWWlgpOwXktY=
=5KVO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
