[racket-dev] Packaging

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