[racket-dev] Packaging

Thanks for clarifying. And I'm sure you must know about it and I'm a
bit afraid to even bring it up, but you might want to use planet's
external version feature.

Robby

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> I am saying we should use something that is not called "version
> number".  On the IRC list I have suggested -- without too much thought
> behind it yet -- that we construct an "upgrade graph"; package
> maintainers can specify which package can be thought of as an
> automatic improvement on another, and some appropriate part of the
> Planet mechanism can therefore follow a chain of these links to find
> the best available candidate for a require.  That allows package
> names, version numbers, and other string-based user-readable
> package-identifying features to be uninterpreted, and written however
> the maintainer wants.
>
> Carl Eastlund
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> 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
>