At Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:47:03 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Lawrence Woodman > <lwood...@vlifesystems.com> wrote: > > On 28/08/13 18:21, Greg Hendershott wrote: > >> ... > >> 2. Use Semantic Versioning (although Matthew IIRC it would need to > >> support versions like "2.0.0" and "0.0.1" that it currently rejects?). > > ... > > In your mention of semantic versioning (http://semver.org for anyone > > not familiar), you say about versions < 1.0 I'm currently using version > > v0.2.1 as the version of my xdgbasedir package without problems, so > > I don't think its an issue, unless it comes up when specifying a dependency. > > My explanation from memory was wrong. > > Instead: You can't (fully) use semantic versioning because the patch > number can't be 0. For example "0.1.0" isn't allowed.
Package versions are intended to be like semver, but they differ syntactically because * the major number should be part of the package name, and * the major number "1" is written "". So, write xdgbasedir version 0.1.0 as package name "xdgbasedir0" and version "1.0". > If I've followed the discussion/history correctly (a big "if", there's > been a lot of it) then I think it's important to remember that the > package manager is infrastructure with the primary _initial_ mission > of allowing Racket itself to be "package-ized". Although it can > already _also_ be used for third-party packages, it's not (yet) > attempting to be the ultimate third-party-package manager. It's not > trying to be "Racket's answer to gems", for instance. As a result > today it's both more flexible and more limited than you might ideally > want for a third-party-package manager. So while Matthew and the core > devs are still busy wrapping up the _initial_ main mission > (package-izing Racket, and the huge source re-org associated with it), > the rest of us may need to do, by convention, some things we might > prefer automated and/or enforced someday. That's my take on it, > anyway. No, the intent is to be the manager for "third-party" packages. Package-izing the main distribution was a secondary mission. Breaking up the distribution has helped, I think, to ensure that the package system can be good enough for its primary mission, but the goal is to better support "third-party" packages. In fact, we want to get rid of the notion that the packages that are currently in the main distribution are special --- at least, not in any way except that they happen to be selected to be in the distribution that PLT provides right now. That's why I keep putting "third-party" in quotes; all packages are considered "third-party" by the package system. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
