On 2013-04-18, at 18:47, Dale Henrichs <dhenr...@vmware.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Camillo Bruni" <camillobr...@gmail.com> > | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > | Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:19:57 PM > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Metacello configuration conventions > | > | I liked ruby-gems approach more than the one in Metacello. You usually > | specify > | a major version (as under linux) for your dependency. That means the > | dependency > | might evolve a bit, typically for bugfixes, without you having to update > | the configuration manually. > | > | http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16 for me is what I'd like to see. > | > | As you say, #stable and #development are mostly for humans. > > Cami, > > I did look at the way ruby-gems worked pretty early on in Metacello > development and I've arranged things such that I should be able to add the > ability to specify ranges of versions, but the whole mechanics of the > ruby-gem universe is different than the smalltalk universe so I'm not sure > that Metacello would give you the behavior you are looking for even I did > allow version ranges to be specified ... > > I'd be willing to spend time working through use cases with you to see if > there would be benefit for enabling that feature...
yes indeed with the global gem server they have a nice central unit which we do not have right now. But Christophe and Erwann are working on a first step towards such a thing for Pharo: - completely automated configuration validation - completely automated tests for loaded configurations But for the version range, I think having that in Metacello would already give very fine-grained control over dependencies. Additionally it would actually give real meaning to the version numbers.
