Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 30.05.2007, 15:12 -0400 schrieb Benji York:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> > It's actually worse than that.  <2.0 would admit 2.0a1. :)  You'd  
> > probably need something like < 1.99.
> 
> I can deal with spelling dependencies on major version X as <= X.999.
> 
> > Even if developers remembered, it would be icky to have to spell out   
> > something like >=3.4 <=3.99 on everwhere.
> 
> Not as icky (IMHO) as having distribution names with embedded major 
> version numbers.  I'm interested in other people's opinions here.

I don't like version numbers encoded in package names. I consider this
to be a work-around for packaging systems that aren't rich enough. 

(Gentoo for example gets this right.)

> > Maybe there is some kind of dependency syntax that reads well that  
> > means "I want this major version".  Can you think of a syntax that is  
> > actually nicer than foo2?
> 
> I can think of a syntax, but don't know if setuptools supports it. 
> Perhaps I should look that up.  But I wont.

I read the documentation on the version numbers multiple times and can't
remember anything that supports our use case.

Maybe we should as pje whether there is something like what we imagine?

Christian

-- 
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstra├če 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to