Mike Orr wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM, kochhar<[email protected]> wrote: >> Jorge Vargas wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:50 PM, kochhar<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I have a package repository which contains packages for pylons 0.9.6.1 >>>> After >>>> adding pylons 0.9.7 and it's dependent packages, my 0.9.6.1 projects >>>> stopped >>>> working. >>>> >>>> It seems bad practice for pylons to specify it's dependencies in the >>>> FooPackage>=x.y.z format; it's too easy to break something. Is there a way >>>> around this so I don't need to create separate package repositories for >>>> 0.9.6.1 >>>> and 0.9.7 >>> I don't see this as bad format as a newer version is (in general a >>> better less buggy version) >> Except when the new versions are not backwards compatible and break existing >> applications. Most libraries don't preserve backwards compatability >> indefinitely. It's fine practice to follow the latest and greatest in >> development but release version specify explicit dependencies to be stable in >> the face of changes. > > Then you end up with the opposite problem: people can't install a > newer version of a library that may have bugfixes or new features they > want or need. > > It's easy to make > your setup.py more restrictive than Pylons'. It's impossible to make > yours less restrictive without modifying Pylons' setup.py, which means > it can't be easy_installed without manual intervention. >
I didn't know that I could do this. I'll use this method instead. Thanks, - kochhar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
