[Rubygems-developers] PATCH: respect requirements of gems

Eivind Eklund eivind at FreeBSD.org
Fri Apr 23 10:22:06 EDT 2004

On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:36:20AM -0400, Chad Fowler wrote:
> On 23/4/2004, at 7:25 AM, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >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
> >mouth.
> >
> Same here.  I think we have slightly different definitions of what a 
> "bad taste" is, but we would probably agree that nothing proposed so 
> far tastes great. :)

At least nothing I've seen.  I've not seen the "1.*.*" proposal you
referred to as being your preferred, though, and I can't find it in the
archives, so I can't say anything about that.  Any enlightenment would
be welcome :-)  (I'll try to write up a policy for how to use this to
generate correct versioning if someoby tell me what it is.  batsman said
something about it just being globs, but that would be the same as my
scheme with single version numbers...)

> Something I'm sure of, though, is that whatever we do will be better 
> than what already exists (in terms of the entire picture of where 
> things are with library management in Ruby).

Let's make sure of that, yeah :-)  (I've seen halfbaked tech make things
worse - for instance, mergemaster in FreeBSD made people think it was OK
to modify /etc and require that those mods were there, while we
previously kept compatibility.)


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list