Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: How to deal with major versions? (was Re: Re: egg version numbers and zope releases)
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-5-31 21:35 +0200: ... I would prefer to spell Jim's example as: 1.=2.3 -1 -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: How to deal with major versions?
Jim Fulton wrote: I don't see how this helps one say that they want to depend on a minimum version of a major version. That is, how does it prevent dependencies like: foo =1.0 1.999 ? I'm wondering how Gentoo got *that* right. I wonder if the package should have something in it's setup.py that says I won't be compatible with anything expecting version 2.0 ? This would end up as metadata on pypi or in the egg/.tar.gz and setuptools could do the hard work of resolving the dependencies... It also removes the burden of specifying maximum revision numbers on the consuming packages and puts it where it belongs: on the maintainer of the package who knows if it's going to be backwards compatible or not.. cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: How to deal with major versions?
On May 31, 2007, at 4:04 AM, Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: I don't see how this helps one say that they want to depend on a minimum version of a major version. That is, how does it prevent dependencies like: foo =1.0 1.999 ? I'm wondering how Gentoo got *that* right. I wonder if the package should have something in it's setup.py that says I won't be compatible with anything expecting version 2.0 ? You say that by sayng that you require =2. (I suspect a typo on your part.) This would end up as metadata on pypi or in the egg/.tar.gz and setuptools could do the hard work of resolving the dependencies... Setuptools doesn't try that hard. Someday, buildout will try a lot harder -- when necessary. It also removes the burden of specifying maximum revision numbers on the consuming packages and puts it where it belongs: on the maintainer of the package who knows if it's going to be backwards compatible or not.. I don't understand that argument. You still have to state a requirement. Maybe I don't understand your proposal. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: How to deal with major versions? (was Re: Re: egg version numbers and zope releases)
Dieter Maurer wrote: Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-30 15:30 -0400: ... IMO, having every dependency look like: project_name =X.y.z X.999 Is too cumbersome. Maybe, we should put this into perspective: What part of our time do we spend on the specification of dependancies? 0.01 per cent? True. However, the problem does not arise when specifying the dependency. The problem will arise when the dependencies were too loose and all of a sudden a version that's too new is pulled in (because it also satisfies the dependency constraint). Furthermore, a new major version probably introduces some backward incompatibilities. However that does not mean that a given component will not work with the new major version. In fact, I rarely have to change my components to support new major versions. Thus, it may not be that often we have to specify X.. Yes, I suspect the same. Also, I think that we can try to be less disruptive in the future. -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: How to deal with major versions? (was Re: Re: egg version numbers and zope releases)
Jim Fulton wrote: On May 30, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Christian Theune wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 30.05.2007, 17:29 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton: How would you say that you wanted 1.2.3 or later and less than 1.3? I think in that case you end up with a combination of =1.2.3 =1.2* Hmn. Is that good or bad? I don't thin it's much better than: =1.2.3 1.2.999 I would prefer to spell Jim's example as: 1.=2.3 -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: How to deal with major versions? (was Re: Re: egg version numbers and zope releases)
Jim Fulton wrote: I don't see how this helps one say that they want to depend on a minimum version of a major version. That is, how does it prevent dependencies like: foo =1.0 1.999 I'm wondering how Gentoo got *that* right. With its naming rules, portage can use a wildcard: =foo-1.* http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1#doc_chap5 Portage also uses 'foo2' as a configuration variable to control dependencies while keeping the unaltered package names: Code Listing 7: Conditionals based on USE-settings DEPEND=X? ( =x11-base/xfree-4.3 ) mysql? ( =dev-db/mysql-3.23.49 ) apache2? ( =net-www/apache-2 ) !apache2? ( =net-www/apache-1* ) ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
