On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> Versions are useful for figuring out if I should upgrade packages or
> not. But I believe the extension framework has explicitly made the
> "upgrade" problem a manual one at this point, either taking
> destination versions from the control, or th
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> Of course, I'ld love for extension in 9.1 to provide a basic
>> provides/features for my extension to give, but if that train has
>> already left the station, I don't have much choice ;-(
>
> Yeah, but the way it is doesn't break the abil
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> Sure, but if you want, the "feature" you can provide can be something like:
> pgtap-1.0 (or any of pgtap-0.2{0,1,2,3,4}).
>
> And if your package is backwards compatable, it could even provide:
> pgtap-0.25
> pgtap-0.24
> pgtap-0.23
I se
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:20 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
>>> intstance, an extension can specify what *feature* it requires, and
>>> difference "versions" of an extension can p
On Apr 4, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
>> intstance, an extension can specify what *feature* it requires, and
>> difference "versions" of an extension can provide different
>> "features".
>
> Right.
Sounds like a book
Aidan Van Dyk writes:
> I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
> intstance, an extension can specify what *feature* it requires, and
> difference "versions" of an extension can provide different
> "features".
That sounds like what Emacs is doing too.
> But checkin
Aidan Van Dyk writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, really? How can you possibly get by without it? Dependencies of
>> this type are all over the place.
> I think the general movement is toward *feature* dependancies. So for
> intstance, an extension can specify
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need
>> or should want version restrictions in Requires references. The
>> equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for Fedora/RedHat packaging use,
>> and I see n
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
>> interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision
>> needs to be reversed. David can choose to enforce something for stuff
>> distributed through PGXN if he wi
On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Once 9.1 is out, it'll probably be too late to dictate any semantics for
> version numbers, because somebody will have done something incompatible
> with it before 9.2 is released. If we are going to try to insist on
> this, now is the time.
Yes, exa
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler
>> wrote:
>>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
>
>> I agree.
>
> I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
> in
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler
> wrote:
>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
> I agree.
I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that dec
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> But I'm assuming that at some point there's going to be something a bit more
> robust: specifically, requiring a minimum version, perhaps something like:
>
> requires = 'foo 1.0, bar 0.31.4'
Or maybe:
requires = 'foo = 1.0, bar >= 0.
Hackers,
I wanted to get a (ok, not so) quick note in about this before the beta
dropped. I've been thinking about the "requires" parameter on extensions
control files. Right now it just lists the names of extensions that are
required for the extension to run:
requires = 'foo, bar'
But I'
14 matches
Mail list logo
