On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Mike Orr<[email protected]> 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 reasonable to restrict an old version of something (Pylon 0.9.6)
> when an incompatibility is known.  But setting closed requirements for
> everything just makes it harder to use a later version if it is
> compatible.  And compatibility may be different in different cases.
> Something may be compatible for new applications but not for existing
> applications.  In that case it's not right to prevent everybody from
> using it just because it's incompatible for some people.  People can
> adjust their application's setup.py if they want to stick to a
> particular version or avoid a known-bad series.  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.

correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the OP said that python 0.9.6
doesn't works with the newer version of X and Y as in it's API
incompatible? if that is the case then what you say doesn't really
applies as it is broken for everyone. Just to clarify I was suggesting
putting a cap on 0.9.6.* not on 0.9.7

>
> --
> Mike Orr <[email protected]>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to