Hi Ken,
It looks useful to me. So, each package should have a version number,
having the convention that major version allows incompatibilities, while
minor version changes must be back compatible. I addition, each package
should specify which packages it depends on, and which major version
numbers of them are supported.
Is all this what you mean?
I think it would be good. It would require some dev. effort. I'm a bit
short of time lately... :(
Cheers,
Juan Vuletich
Ken Dickey wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> While we are discussing package dependencies, I thought to bring up an old concept: Compatibility Numbers.
>
> The basic idea is that one updates a version number with each release, but one only increments a compatibility number when there is an INcompatible change to an API.
>
> Software can know the past (and deal with it) but not the future. Checking compatibility of required package dependencies is a quick and cheap sanity check. If the compatibility number of a package is higher than some software knows about, then it can pop up a warning or take some other action.
>
> While I don't really want to introduce version numbers for packages, I do like compatibility numbers.
>
> Does this sound like overkill or a useful convention?
>
> $0.02,
> -KenD
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Cuis mailing list
[hidden email]
http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
Locked
