Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

paket outdated ignores version constraints #308

Closed
agross opened this issue Oct 28, 2014 · 6 comments
Closed

paket outdated ignores version constraints #308

agross opened this issue Oct 28, 2014 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@agross
Copy link
Contributor

agross commented Oct 28, 2014

paket.dependencies

source http://nuget.org/api/v2

nuget Castle.Windsor ~> 3.2

paket.lock:

NUGET
  remote: http://nuget.org/api/v2
  specs:
    Castle.Core (3.2.0)

paket outdated tells me there is a new version that clearly violates my version constraint

$ paket outdated
Paket version 0.9.6.0
Parsing paket.dependencies
Resolving packages:
  - fetching versions for Castle.Core
    - exploring Castle.Core 3.3.1
Outdated packages found:
  * Castle.Core 3.2.0 -> 3.3.1
06.09s - ready.

paket update updates according to the version constraint:

$ paket update
Paket version 0.9.6.0
Parsing paket.dependencies
Resolving packages:
  - fetching versions for Castle.Core
    - exploring Castle.Core 3.2.2
Locked version resolutions written to paket.lock
Castle.Core 3.2.2 unzipped to packages\Castle.Core
02.87s - ready.

I think there's a value in paket outdated supporting both

  • a "show me updates according to my constraints" model (it should be the default)
  • a "show me updates regardless of my constraints" model (e.g. paket outdated --ignore-constraints)
@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 29, 2014

didn't we define the defaults like documented? http://fsprojects.github.io/Paket/paket-outdated.html

--strict gives what you want.

@theimowski
Copy link
Member

IMO --strict might be misleading, as we already use the same keyword for the strict mode

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 29, 2014

ha I found it: #183

But I'm open to change it.

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Oct 31, 2014

So how do we want to name the new parameter if we change the defaults?

@forki
Copy link
Member

forki commented Nov 3, 2014

I still need a name fot the new -- option. @agross ?

@agross
Copy link
Contributor Author

agross commented Nov 3, 2014

I vote for --ignore-constraints

@forki forki closed this as completed in cf9d54b Nov 7, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@agross @forki @theimowski