Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca writes:
I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
intstance, an extension can specify what *feature* it requires, and
difference versions of an extension can provide different
features.
That sounds like what Emacs is doing too.
On Apr 4, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
intstance, an extension can specify what *feature* it requires, and
difference versions of an extension can provide different
features.
Right.
Sounds like a book-keeping
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:20 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
intstance, an extension can specify what *feature* it requires, and
difference versions of an
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
Sure, but if you want, the feature you can provide can be something like:
pgtap-1.0 (or any of pgtap-0.2{0,1,2,3,4}).
And if your package is backwards compatable, it could even provide:
pgtap-0.25
pgtap-0.24
pgtap-0.23
I see, I get
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
Of course, I'ld love for extension in 9.1 to provide a basic
provides/features for my extension to give, but if that train has
already left the station, I don't have much choice ;-(
Yeah, but the way it is doesn't
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
But I'm assuming that at some point there's going to be something a bit more
robust: specifically, requiring a minimum version, perhaps something like:
requires = 'foo 1.0, bar 0.31.4'
Or maybe:
requires = 'foo
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com
wrote:
* I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
I agree.
I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
interpretation of
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com
wrote:
* I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
I agree.
I don't. We
On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Once 9.1 is out, it'll probably be too late to dictate any semantics for
version numbers, because somebody will have done something incompatible
with it before 9.2 is released. If we are going to try to insist on
this, now is the time.
Yes,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision
needs to be reversed. David can choose to enforce something for stuff
distributed through
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need
or should want version restrictions in Requires references. The
equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for
Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca writes:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, really? How can you possibly get by without it? Dependencies of
this type are all over the place.
I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
12 matches
Mail list logo
