>>>>> "SR" == Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
SR> I think code reuse is generally a good thing. As long as there is
SR> no circular dependency, what's wrong with depending on a few eggs?
SR> It's better than rewriting the parts you need, right? (and if your
SR> few dependencies each depend on few more, pretty soon it's a lot of
SR> eggs. Oh well.)
It seems not too hard to implement dependency resolving in
software. Surely, it shouldn't be necessary to download all the
dependencies manually.
SR> But it's important for popular eggs to be kept in a working state,
SR> and not change existing APIs in them when avoidable.
Could it be the reason to include version numbers into the .egg
names, so that, when the interface changes, both LIBRARY-M.N.egg
and LIBRARY-(+ 1 M).0.egg be available?
[...]
SR> Maybe staged releases will become important... make a clear
SR> distinction between the stable version of an egg and the
SR> new/improved/under-development version.
Including version numbers into the .egg names is the one way to
achieve this. (Version -> ``stability'' mapping is to be made
available separately.)
It's the way the Debian archive is organized.
SR> When one egg depends on an older version of another (and will not
SR> work with a newer version) maybe there should be a way to specify
SR> that in the metadata, so that installing the one egg can
SR> automatically install the older version of the other. (Or can they
SR> even co-exist?)
It would be too infeasible in my opinion (apart from the ``major
interface changes'' case above.) ``Fixing'' the another egg to
work with the new version of the changed one seems to be a much
better solution.
SR> Gentoo's portage system can do stuff like that.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
