On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2015, at 17:45, stephan <stephan@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.
> Pharo itself is not yet managed with configurations, and has AFAIK a much higher change rate
> 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.

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.



> 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@iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Moose-dev mailing list