Hi all!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> On 15 juil. 04, at 17:19, lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > 3. Number two is, as you suggest, to have dependencies between 
> > packages.
> >  They do not need to be complex as we get going, but please do make 
> > them
> > based on packages not particular versions.  At the distribution level,
> > the dependencies should be like "Scamper needs URL", not "Scamper 1.5
> > needs URL 1.3".  This is because, within a distribution, users almost
> > always want to have the newest versions of the packages.
> 
> Lex I do not understand why been to specify precise version number is a 
> problem.
> Because how can I load then a coherent configuration of the not that 
> much recent
> distribution if for example a change in one of the package get in 
> conflict with one
> of my tools and I cannot change it. Then I will have to try and error 
> to load a working
> set of old package. Note that I understand that when you are in 
> development mode
> you do not want to all the time edit dependencies but when you release 
> something
> so that public people can use it there is nothing more frustrating than 
> the Store behavior
> where you do not know which package to load and the latest one is not 
> quite right.
> 
> Stef

I agree with you Stephane. IMHO the only thing that I can promise is
that a certain set of *releases* (=versions) work together. I can't
promise that the newest release of Y works with X 1.2, because that is
*in the future*.

Well, I will not try to describe my plan once more :) - but I *do*
understand the "fear" of too much detailed description work etc. But I
intend to make this as transparent and "single clickable" as possible.

regards, Göran