Re: Package naming when no backward compatibility at all?

["J. Lewis Muir" <jlmuir%imca-cat.org@localhost>]

On 10/18, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> * On 2024-10-18 at 04:45 BST, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> 
> > Yet another approach could be to package all the software in the
> > ecosystem together in one pkgsrc package.  I'm not a big fan, but it
> > would solve the dependency difficulty, I think, because then there'd be
> > no dependencies between packages from the same ecosystem since they'd
> > all be bundled into one monolithic package.
> 
> If they're really that bad at release versioning then this is probably the
> route I'd take.
> 
> If it's likely that a user will want to have multiple versions to choose
> from then use separate packages, pkg-20240401-1.0, pkg-20250401-1.0, etc,
> but if one version at a time would suffice then just pkg-20240401.

Thanks for your comments.  I was hoping you'd say this approach was
ridiculous and why! :-)

That is their policy, but in practice, I'm not sure how often it occurs.
I know it happens, and when I'd try to upgrade packages after not
touching things for a long while, it was always brutal because so many
things were broken that needed to be fixed in order to get it all to
build again.

But as gdt@ essentially suggested, maybe I can get close without having
to go to this extreme.

Regards,

Lewis