Does anybody else have an opinion on this? On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:26:29 +0200, Knut Wannheden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:59:04 -0400, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I had envisioned something even simpler, where the version string was > > either a triple, or a partial and a +. The former would be "perfect", > > the later would be "greaterequal". You may have noticed that in > > general I prefer more complex solutions but in this case, my gut > > feeling is that "less is more". Need to come up with percise, codable > > defintiions of all those match types. > > > > I think it could be useful to distinguish between more than just > "perfect" and "greaterequal" matches. For instance it is quite common > to use the major version to indicate a refactored and backwards > incompatible version. And minor versions often just indicate added > features, but otherwise backwards compatible. Thus for a dependency > the following would be possible: > > - no version or match attribute -- any version of "other.module" required > - only version given -- would use the default "compatible" match for > given version > - version and match="greaterequal" -- all 3 parts of the version must > be greater or equal > - version and match="compatible" -- major must match and others must > be greater or equal > - version and match="equivalent" -- major and minor must match and > last is greater or equal > - version and match="perfect" -- all 3 parts of the version must match >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
