Efraim Flashner schreef op do 31-03-2022 om 17:47 [+0300]:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 02:01:31PM +0200, Maxime Devos wrote:
> > Evgenii Lepikhin via Guix-patches via schreef op do 31-03-2022 om
> 00:35
> > [+0300]:
> > > +(define-public rust-minimal-lexical-0.2
> > > +  (package
> > > +    (name "rust-minimal-lexical")
> > > +    (version "0.2.1")
> > > +    (source
> > > +      (origin
> > > +        (method url-fetch)
> > > +        (uri (crate-uri "minimal-lexical" version))
> > > +        (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))
> > > +        (sha256
> > > +         (base32
> "16ppc5g84aijpri4jzv14rvcnslvlpphbszc7zzp6vfkddf4qdb8"))))
> > > +    (build-system cargo-build-system)
> > > +    (home-page "https://github.com/Alexhuszagh/minimal-lexical")
> > > +    (synopsis "Fast float parsing conversion routines")
> > > +    (description "Fast float parsing conversion routines.")
> > > +    (license (list license:expat license:asl2.0))))
> > > +
> > >  (define-public rust-minimal-lexical-0.1
> > >    (package
> > >      (name "rust-minimal-lexical")
> > 
> > Instead of defining a new package, WDYT renaming 'rust-minimal-
> lexical-
> > 0.1' to 'rust-minimal-lexical' and updating it to 0.2?  If so,
> you'll
> > have to check if rust-nom@7 still builds.
> 
> semver is very strongly followed in the rust community, so 0.1 isn't
> necessarily compatible with 0.2. That's how we've ended up with the
> numerical suffix on all the rust packages.

It isn't 100% theoretically compatible.  However, it might be
_sufficiently_ compatible for all packages using rust-minimal-lexical 
in Guix.  The same seems to hold often for non-Rust packages, I don't
see a reason to make an exception for Rust.  Why do we package separate
0.Y versions (or separate major versions, for that matter) for Rust
packages and not for, say, Guile, Python and C packages?

Greetings,
Maxime.