[Rubygems-developers] PATCH: respect requirements of gems

Eivind Eklund eivind at FreeBSD.org
Fri Apr 23 07:25:16 EDT 2004

On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:40:58AM -0400, Chad Fowler wrote:
> I've thought about this quite a bit, and while I understand what you're  
> trying to do and the code is obviously fine, I just can't force myself  
> to like this.  I was more open to Eivind's other suggestion of having a  
> separate, single, incrementing number for version compatibility, but  
> Jim's 1.*.* suggestion still strikes me as being the least offensive.

I've missed this suggestion, and can't find it in the archives (nor in
the mail I've received from the list).  Mind a quick recap?

BTW: From my point of view, library versioning is inherently offensive.
I find everything I've ever seen in the area at least slightly
offensive, either being non-functional, ugly, incomplete, too complex,
too much work, or (usually) a combination of several of them.  It is a
problem that is very tempting to just disregard or go for some hacky
solution to - however, then stuff just don't work and the user is
left up the creek :-(

As an example, I'm seeing this with the single-version solution and gettext
in FreeBSD ports.   It has gone so far that we're modifying ports
one-by-one in an attempt to make it possible to disable gettext to avoid
the sideeffects of the versioning problem on ONE library.  This requires
modification to at least hundreds (and possibly thousands) of ports, and
is something we have to do even with us owning the version bumping and
release engineering for the packages, and doing formally correct
versioning (single-number variant).

I'd LOVE to see a better solution to this than the ones I've proposed -
they are just the ones that leave the least amount of bad taste in my


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list