[racket-dev] Packaging

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 22 16:06:47 EST 2011

Carl: your message is unclear to me. Are you saying that attempting to
solve the problem of matching up require requests with available
versions of software packages is hopeless and we shouldn't attempt it,
or are you saying that we should use something that is not (literally)
called "version number" or are you saying something else?


On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> Do you mean to inherit Planet's current "version number" semantics?
> Ugggghhhhh.  Assigning a fixed structure and semantics to version
> numbers was one of the worst things Planet did.  Dracula is up to
> 8:18, and goodness knows what that means.  It does not mean there have
> been 8 significantly different versions of Dracula, such that I gave
> the release bigger fanfare than usual.  It means there were 8 times
> when some potential incompatibility between releases occurred to me
> between the time of package creation and the time of upload.  That
> should not be how version numbers are determined.  It is not at all
> clear to me that version numbers should serve as an automatic metric
> of compatibility or upgrade-ability; let's either come up with a
> metric that is more to the point, or stop trying so hard to enforce
> things like "no compatibility regressions" that are often hard to
> detect in the first place.
> Carl Eastlund
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't feel strongly about this and you seem to, so supposing we
>> support any conflicting installations, it makes sense for Planet 2.0
>> to have both major and minor versions.
>> Jay
>> 2011/2/19 Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>:
>>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Robby Findler
>>> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>>> It looks to me like you there is relevant, important metadata that
>>>> you're making someone fold into an implicit place instead of an
>>>> explicit one.
>>>> Will you have a convention for these? What if I decide to call mine
>>>> "libgtk2.0" and someone else calls theirs "somepackage-2"? That
>>>> doesn't seem good fo
>>> [ Sorry; got distracted here and forgot to come back. ]
>>> That doesn't seem good for users who are trying to find packages.
>>> Especially if I were to call mine "2-somepackage" (you may think this
>>> far fetched, but if you look you should find an example of this in our
>>> current collection tree....)
>>> Robby
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev

Posted on the dev mailing list.