Tiny Core Extensions > TCE 2.x

icu

<< < (3/3)

maro:
Was that really necessary to create two versions of the icu extension when only 'sword.tcz' (and 'sword-dev.tcz') still depend on the old one? Why not re-build the one "offending" extension, which appears to be only required by 'bibletime.tcz' anyway.

Or have I missed out on an important technical reason to keep two versions around? I thought the idea was not to maintain multiple versions of the same thing unless there might be really good reasons for this (e.g. 'python-2.5.2.tcz' in addition to 'python.tcz').

BTW, 'icu-44-dev.tcz.dep' still lists 'icu.tcz' as it's only dependency.

^thehatsrule^:
Yea, releases don't seem to be compatible.  Also fixed that dep, thanks.

maro:
So what is the upshot? Are we now stuck with having two versions of a library because some old and probably extremely seldom used extension has not been re-build?

I'm raising this because I'm getting worried that this is the start of a "slippery slope" where TC ends up with a "mess" of various versions of the same thing just because no one cared. I thought the aim was to avoid multiple versions and stay reasonably current with just a single library version. I guess the "pain" involved now to fix this is small compared to the pain at a later point in time when things have become really messy.

^thehatsrule^:
I don't know how popular, etc. this library is, but the main reason is compatibility.  Having multiple versions where some thing such as the API differs allows for 'older' extensions to (still) work, users may have their own stuff that require or already using a certain version, etc.  New (major) versions are likely to revisit the same problem.  Plus, at least in this case, maintenance is likely to be low.  Similar situations could include Python, Java, X, etc.  I think the gains outweigh the fallacy ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page