On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tobias Müller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:troplin@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">troplin@bluewin.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">Clark Gaebel <<a href="mailto:cgaebel@uwaterloo.ca">cgaebel@uwaterloo.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
> To prevent this, I think the PVP should specify that if dependencies get<br>
> a major version bump, the package itself should bump its major version<br>
> (preferably the B field).<br>
<br>
</div>No, it has nothing to do with major/minor version bumps. It's just that if<br>
you underspecify your dependencies, they may become invalid at some point<br>
and you cannot correct them.<br>
Overspecified dependencies will always remain correct.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is required if you want to maintain the property that clients don't break.</div><div><br></div><div>If A-1.0 dependes on B-1.0.* and C depends on both A-1.0.* and B-1.0.*. Bumping dependency in A on B to B-2.0.* without bumping the major version number of A will cause C to fail to compile as it now depends on both B-1.0.* (directly) and B-2.0.* (though A-1.0).</div>
<div><br></div><div>-- Johan</div><div><br></div></div>