I don't feel strongly about this and you seem to, so supposing we
support any conflicting installations, it makes sense for Planet 2.0
to have both major and minor versions.
Jay
2011/2/19 Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Robby Findler
Good point
Jay
2011/2/19 Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org:
5 hours ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
2011/2/18 Jos Koot jos.k...@telefonica.net:
For a simple windows 7 user as I it is rather difficult to use
command line instructions. I plead for an easy to use gui for
making contributions.
I
Do you mean to inherit Planet's current version number semantics?
Uh. Assigning a fixed structure and semantics to version
numbers was one of the worst things Planet did. Dracula is up to
8:18, and goodness knows what that means. It does not mean there have
been 8 significantly
Carl: your message is unclear to me. Are you saying that attempting to
solve the problem of matching up require requests with available
versions of software packages is hopeless and we shouldn't attempt it,
or are you saying that we should use something that is not (literally)
called version
I am saying we should use something that is not called version
number. On the IRC list I have suggested -- without too much thought
behind it yet -- that we construct an upgrade graph; package
maintainers can specify which package can be thought of as an
automatic improvement on another, and some
Thanks for clarifying. And I'm sure you must know about it and I'm a
bit afraid to even bring it up, but you might want to use planet's
external version feature.
Robby
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I am saying we should use something that is not called
I am aware of the external versions, but since I can't put them in a
require spec to identify the package I want, they aren't terribly
useful as an identifying feature of a package.
Carl Eastlund
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Thanks for
7 matches
Mail list logo
