22 Jun
2015
22 Jun
'15
8:50 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote:
Pharo itself is not yet managed with configurations, and has AFAIK a much higher
change rate
FWIW I always keep a copy of my package-cache around after a full release
build.
Got bitten more than once with what you experience.
Now, I am doing lots of R at the moment and package dependencies aren't a
walk in the park either.
Phil
On 22 Jun 2015, at 17:45, stephan
<stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote:
On 22-06-15 16:49, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> The point is that I can take my 2 year old Ruby project, load gems and
it
works. When I take my 2 month old Pharo project that depends on Roassal
(this is not only about Roassal, I just have a concrete case) - it breaks.
than Ruby. I have been a lot less lucky with
older Ruby stuff, combining
stuff from different eras
was interesting…
I am not saying about combining. I want to make my code usable. So when I
make something I can say: "Ok, I have a stable version that works on Pharo
4 and depend on Roassal 1.11”. And if someone will want to run it in 2
years, he will download Pharo 4 and run it with Roassal 1.11. Off course it
will not work when combined with something that depends on roassal 2.x, but
al least it will work alone + other people will know that it’s supposed to
work on Roassal 1.11.
Uko
--
That makes it essential not to depend on the numbered versions, as you
know that
they will
need to be patched to keep working on a moving
target.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev