Re: [Chicken-hackers] required-extension-version (possible version-numbers issue)

2008-04-14 Thread Ivan Raikov
Hi Mario, How do you propose this is handled? The situation below occurs because 501 6 (obviously), so chicken-setup thinks that 1.501 is newer than 1.6.x. My solution would be to remove releases and prerequisites of the form x.xxx because such a versioning scheme is idiotic. But I am open

Re: [Chicken-hackers] required-extension-version (possible version-numbers issue)

2008-04-14 Thread Leonardo Valeri Manera
On 15/04/2008, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The versions egg uses the same (sane) principle of version comparison: (version? (string-version 1.501) (string-version 1.6.0)) = #t I agree that it is time to sanitize the egg versions, but 501 6 and there is nothing I can do about

Re: [Chicken-hackers] required-extension-version (possible version-numbers issue)

2008-04-14 Thread Ivan Raikov
I don't understand what you mean by that. As long as a version is defined as a dotted list of integers in decimal representation, 1.501 1.6.0. If you want your release versions to be ordered correctly, then those version numbers have to be a well-ordered sequence in increasing order and

Re: [Chicken-hackers] required-extension-version (possible version-numbers issue)

2008-04-14 Thread Ivan Raikov
Yes, that's exactly what I have been trying to say. If you use the same consistent versioning format, then chicken-setup will work correctly, regardless of whether the format is x.x.x or x.xxx, or whatever. But if you switch from one format to another, then you risk messing up the version