On Jan 27, 6:28 pm, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote: > Given the specific set of version selectors, I strongly suspect that > Kenn is using the Ruby GEM version specification language as his > template:http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16
Actually, I wasn't specifically referencing GEM versioning, but rather other versioning systems I'm familiar with (such as OSGi). Here's what I meant by my suggested comparisons, where 'major', 'minor', and 'service' refer to the first, second, and third version numbers, respectively: perfect (==) - module version must match exactly the specified version equivalent (=) - module version must be at least at the version specified, or at a higher service level (major and minor version levels must equal the specified version) compatible (~) - module version must be at least at the version specified, or at a higher service level or minor level (major version level must equal the specified version) greaterOrEqual (>=) - module version must be at least at the version specified, or at a higher service, minor or major level I'm not sure all of these can be achieved with just one of the literal comparison operators currently supported in the Forge; for equivalence and compatibility, it seems that you would need to be able to specify a range (e.g., >= 1.2.3, < 1.3.0 would mean "equivalent" to 1.2.3). Kenn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
