[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#14941: [Patch] Lighten up wrt version specification
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#14941: [Patch] Lighten up wrt version specification |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:42:00 -0700 (PDT) |
> I installed this hunk, but not the other.
IOW, you did not fix bug #14941. Neither the "this hunk" nor "the
other" you refer to are part of the bug 14941 thread; they are part of
#15108. Please change bug #14941 to "wont-fix", which correctly reflects
its new status.
> If a "Version:" header is missing, it should stay as an error, because
> package.el relies heavily on version numbers.
There is no such "because" - illogical. That package.el relies heavily
on version numbers is irrelevant. It need not rely on the presence of
a `Version:' specification to nevertheless rely on a version number.
It need simply consider lack of an explicit `Version:' spec as
specifying version 0. It is reasonable to have a default behavior,
and that is the right default value.
As for `Version: ' vs `Version: 0': As the bug #14941 report says, an
empty version field can indicate - to human readers - that the file is
not versioned. For package.el it means only that any version will do
when the file is required. But to humans it can indicate more: that the
file is not versioned. This is a minor point, but there is no reason
for package.el to require the explicit "0".
It's a program. It can assume "0" for an empty field here, just as it
can assume `Version: 0' for no version spec.