[plt-scheme] proposal for indicating planet package version numbers

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:16:59PM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Sorry, I misread, trying to read sideways. :)
> 
> The concern I have with marginalizing the real version number comes from 
> the fact that I try to develop portable Scheme libraries that are used 
> on many different Scheme implementations.  I do this for practical 
> reasons, so that people can invest in Scheme and move between 
> implementations for different requirements.  (Say, PLT by default, 
> something else if one needs to run in a JVM, use massive numbers of 
> threads, run on a microcontroller, start using a new research Scheme 
> implementation, run in a different Scheme that is already embedded in an 
> application, or...)
> 
> I believe that the other implementation-specific packagings of my 
> libraries all use the canonical version number.  So when I say "Foo 
> 1.3", everyone is talking about the same thing.  PLT is my favorite 
> all-around Scheme, but I would be sad if I had to say "Foo 1.3 (which is 
> 2.1 to PLT users)" and "oh, all this time you meant *PLT* 2.1, which 
> means you're actually using... hm... Foo 1.3, and you really need Foo 
> 2.1, which is... hm... PLT 3.0..."
> 
> I'm not saying that my needs alone should affect PLaneT design 
> decisions, but I think that some of my needs might be shared by other 
> PLT users, now or in the near future.

Debian has a policy that version numbers of Debian packages should be 
similar to the version number of the corresponding upstream package, 
with possibly a midifier on the end to indicate Debian's modifications.

Perhaps something similar would work here?

-- hendrik