Hi,
I use pip to install modules and setuptools to install dependencies, and
generate a console_script using the entry_point parameter of setup.
Here is the issue :
my current sources depend on modules, let's say A=1.0, B=1.0, C=2.0. And C
depends on B=1.1
I have no problem with using pip to
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
How do you expect the end result to work? Will it be that your code
imports one version of a module, but other code imports another? You
would have to rename one of them or something.
At
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
In general, I would expect that B 1.1 is backward-compatible with B
1.0, unless otherwise stated. Why must it be declared in any way other
than the version number?
To make it explicit. The generic component system shouldn't impose
(m)any assumptions on version
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
In general, I would expect that B 1.1 is backward-compatible with B
1.0, unless otherwise stated. Why must it be declared in any way other
than the version number?
To make it explicit.
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
How do you expect the end result to work? Will it be that your code
imports one version of a module, but other code imports another? You
would have to rename one of them or something.
At work, we have created an analogous component system that has solved
this
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Cyril Scetbon cyril.scet...@free.fr wrote:
Forcing my-module to use B=1.1 fixes the issue. However it's just a sample
and my code is using a lot of modules that use other shared modules too. Is
there a way to let dependencies use their own version of the
It's just a sample. I'd like to get a general answer. So think about the worst
case.
On Jul 9, 2015, at 21:50, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Cyril Scetbon cyril.scet...@free.fr wrote:
Forcing my-module to use B=1.1 fixes the issue. However it's just
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Cyril Scetbon cyril.scet...@free.fr wrote:
It's just a sample. I'd like to get a general answer. So think about the
worst case.
(Please don't top-post on this list.)
The worst case is virtually impossible to handle. Somewhere along the
way, you need to say
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Whoever creates B-1.1 ought to make it backward-compatible, but he
should also say so. The majority of developers are careless about
backward-compatibility; having the component system make
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
And just how compatible does it have to be to get a tick?
It must be a safe binary replacement of the earlier version. Bug fixes
and new features are ok, but none of the old functionality can be
obsoleted.
Your
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Your descriptions conflict. A safe binary replacement usually cannot
even add new features, in case this breaks something.
Linus Torvalds is adamant about maintaining ABI compatibility across
Linux versions. That hasn't prevented him from accepting numerous new
On 10/07/2015 01:04, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Your descriptions conflict. A safe binary replacement usually cannot
even add new features, in case this breaks something.
New functions in C libraries do not cause runtime breakage.
It's good to know that there's
12 matches
Mail list logo
