Re: Rollback, or fix for 5.0.4?

On 4/20/10 Apr 20 -12:33 PM, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> I suppose that this is cold comfort to the OP, but I'd argue this
>> suggests that we should revise the CLSQL asdf definitions to use the
>> :version dependency to record which versions of CLSQL are compatible
>> with which versions of UFFI and CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT.
> 
> That's an good idea. I'll take a look at using ASDF version dependency.
> (I wasn't aware that ASDF had that functionality).

It does, but it's finicky.  You have to add :version metadata to the
ASDF libraries, and you need to know how VERSION-SATISFIES-P works.

IIUC, if you put

(:depends-on ((:version uffi "1.2")))

That means you will fail on a version x.y.z st x != 1 (first version
must match exactly), and will pass on any version st. x = 1 and y >= 2.

So you need to make sure that the way you assign version numbers to UFFI
and to CLSQL is consistent with the version tests.

This means don't do the excessively modest open source version thing!
If you change the API, please bump the initial index (x).  Compatible
changes to the API can be put in y, and I would push patches into z.

HtH,

r