[asdf-devel] has ":depends-on ((:version ...))" semantics changed?

[Pascal Costanza]

> On 18 Nov 2013, at 16:45, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:
>>> ASDF is not going to hard code an
>>> exception for your library.
>> 
>> Closer to MOP already existed before asdf imposed anything on version numbers, so asdf has to provide a way to define exceptions for such cases. The versioning scheme of Closer to MOP was ad hoc, because nothing existed that could have been adhered to. It must be possible for libraries to move from non-adhering to adhering in a smooth way. Frankly, I don't care how that's achieved. If I can solve this by adding something to the system definition, that's fine with me...
> Did your library exist on 20/02/2002? Because that's when
> version-satisfies appeared with its ldo.so-like versioning semantics.

The it was my mistake that I didn't pay attention, and just got lucky that it only created a problem two times in almost ten years...

Pascal
> .
> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> Everyone hates a martyr. It's no wonder martyrs were burnt at a stake.
>                — E.W. Howe, "Country Town Sayings", p.7