[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] Re: Trying to install binary-0.4

[Ketil Malde]

"Claus Reinke" <claus.reinke at talk21.com> writes:

>> You need a way to specify "foo > 1.2 && foo < 2", which is a
>> suggestion that was tossed around here recently.   

> but what does such a version range say? that i haven't tested any
> versions outside the range (because they didn't exist when i wrote
> my package)? or that i have, and know that later versions won't do?

IMO, it says that it works with interface version 1, and needs some
stuff from sublevel 2, and as long as the foo developers keep their
end of the bargain, it will continue to work with new releases in the
1-series.  For foo-2, the interface may change, and all bets are off. 

The dependency could be expressed more in a more succinct (albeit less
flexible) manner with a different syntax (e.g. "foo-1.2").

> if that decision is based on version numbers alone, we need to
> be specific about the meaning of version numbers in dependencies.

Yes.

> and if the major/minor scheme is to be interpreted as Simon
> summarised, the only acceptable form of a dependency is an
> explicit version range (the range of versions known to work).

I'm happy with "expected to work".

>> The major/minor scheme has worked nicely for .so for ages. 

> i'm not so sure about that. it may be better than alternatives,
> but [..]

Also, it sees a lot of testing, at least in current Linux
distributions.  The point is that the end-user experience is pretty
good. 

-k
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants