
8 Nov
2011
8 Nov
'11
4:57 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08.11.2011 22:35, Rogan Creswick wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Jochen Keil >wrote: >>> Except we can't use these types of version "numbers" for >>> Hackage, and they don't match the Package Versioning Policy: >>> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Package_versioning_policy >> >> Too bad that there's a policy. Although I personally don't like >> versioning using major and minor numbers, I understand that it's >> necessary for something like the haskell platform. Thanks for >> pointing me to it. > > The PVP provides the framework that allows flexible version > specifications for dependencies. > > Assuming the spirit of the PVP is followed, you can ignore the > D-level version numbering, and depend on C-level numbering in a > cabal file. That generally allows bugfix releases of your > dependencies to be used without any changes to your code or cabal > file, while telling cabal that API-breaking changes (marked by the > higher version number slots) do not satisfy your application's > requirements. > > This is far from foolproof, but it is very convenient when it's followed. Sounds like libtool versioning to me, but I'm not the one to ask here. - From a user (meaning non-programmer) perspective this is a bit odd. As long as you don't break your API you are stuck with a possibly low major version number which looks like alpha or beta software. However, I understand the technical benefit of this and I'm fine with it. Hope there are no marketing people around. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk65pcwACgkQtVwvsA+W4CC04ACfVfS9yLtRxTW/2PKrH7rHCzoi E4wAn2yM97Oude2/WZE9e5l/Vgr1ywrL =W/JC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----