> So, I'm not sure how happy I would be as a user if my package installer bailed out and asked me to choose!
Its definitely not a great UX, but at the end of the day the problem can only be solved at the language level or by package authors choosing new names. For instance in java you can't import 2 major versions of a package. Solving for minor versions having to bail out has been incredibly rare in my experience. I only see it when there's "true" incompatibilities, e.g.
foo: ^1.5.0
bar: foo (<= 1.5)
> Out of curiosity, how do you mark your package as "only once" in cargo? I tried googling, and didn't find an answer, but did find a bug where people couldn't build because they ended up depending on two different versions of C libraries!
I think its the `links = ""` flag. It may only work for linking against C libraries at the moment, but cargo understands it!
> It does make wonder if MVS will solve real pain in practice. :-)
Not by itself, the semantic import versioning is the solution to the major version problem, by giving major versions of package different names. Go packages aren't allowed to blacklist versions, though your top level module is. This just means that package authors are going to have to communicate incompatible versions out of band, and that the go tool may pick logically incompatible versions with no signal to the user beyond (hopefully) broken tests!
> Go packages aren't allowed to blacklist versions, though your top level module is. This just means that package authors are going to have to communicate incompatible versions out of band, and that the go tool may pick logically incompatible versions with no signal to the user beyond (hopefully) broken tests!
Yeah, it seems if the Go system ends up not working out in practice, this will be why.
But because of the minimal nature of MVS, you won't run into this problem unless something else is compelling you to go to the broken version. And by the time that's happening, you'd hope that the bug would've been reported and fixed in the original library.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in practice.
(Also, if I have a library A that depends on B, which is being reluctant or slow about fixing some bug, I can always take the nuclear option and just fork B and then depend on that. Basically the explicit version of what Cargo would do through deciding it couldn't resolve w/o creating two versions. But I think the incentives might be set up right that the easy/happy path will end up getting taken in practice.)
Its definitely not a great UX, but at the end of the day the problem can only be solved at the language level or by package authors choosing new names. For instance in java you can't import 2 major versions of a package. Solving for minor versions having to bail out has been incredibly rare in my experience. I only see it when there's "true" incompatibilities, e.g.
foo: ^1.5.0 bar: foo (<= 1.5)
> Out of curiosity, how do you mark your package as "only once" in cargo? I tried googling, and didn't find an answer, but did find a bug where people couldn't build because they ended up depending on two different versions of C libraries!
I think its the `links = ""` flag. It may only work for linking against C libraries at the moment, but cargo understands it!
> It does make wonder if MVS will solve real pain in practice. :-)
Not by itself, the semantic import versioning is the solution to the major version problem, by giving major versions of package different names. Go packages aren't allowed to blacklist versions, though your top level module is. This just means that package authors are going to have to communicate incompatible versions out of band, and that the go tool may pick logically incompatible versions with no signal to the user beyond (hopefully) broken tests!