Imports with versions

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-10-30 21:02, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> But doesn't that mean the version wasn't correctly depended upon?
>
> There should NEVER be generic dynamic library dependencies (i.e., "I can
> link with any version of libc"), because they are almost always wrong in
> some way. Maybe not obvious at first, but still wrong. They should
> always depend on the *exact* version (or versions) of a library.
> Anything else is fundamentally broken and will eventually cause
> headaches and sleepless nights.
>
> Mind you, though, a lot of libraries have a totally broken versioning
> system. Many library authors believe that the version only needs to be
> bumped when the API changes. Or worse, only when the existing API
> changes (new parts of the API are discounted.) That is actually wrong.
> The version needs to be bumped every time the *ABI* changes. An ABI
> change can include such things as compiling with different flags, or
> with a different compiler (*cough*gdc*dmd*cough*), *even when the source
> code hasn't been touched*. Any library that breaks this rule is
> essentially impossible to work with, because there is no way to
> guarantee that what gets linked at runtime is actually what you think it
> is.
>
> Unfortunately, in practice, both of the above are broken repeatedly.

I completely agree. See my answer about RubyGems and Bundler:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ycigekrnsvjuulbxuxqr@forum.dlang.org#post-k6pc33:241ma3:241:40digitalmars.com

Packages in RubyGems are using Semantic Versioning:

http://semver.org/

Which is supposed to help with these problems. But Ruby doesn't have a 
problem with breaking an ABI.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg