Paket: Semver dependency?

[haf]

With paket pack and paket.template, and using ~> #{version}, https://www.nuget.org/packages/Suave/2.3.0-beta depends on wrong versions; too constrained. I'd like to do a semver dependency. Is there a squiggly for that? (Besides (3, 4.0])?

[matthid]

@haf is it not working as documented in https://fsprojects.github.io/Paket/nuget-dependencies.html#Pessimistic-version-constraint?

[haf]

It is. But that's not a semver dependency. I'm just asking if that wouldn't be a nice feature?

[matthid]

I always thought '~> 1.0' is exactly that?

[haf]

But you probably want to cap the version below to the currently built-with version but the upper end should be major+1 exclusive. I'm talking about generating nugets with paket now.

[Gonnagle]

As far as I know at the moment you can achieve what you want' by explicitly defining the range. For example:
nuget DotLiquid >= 2.0.174 < 3.0 will result dependency x >= 2.0.174 && x < 3.0

So what you are asking for is a shortcut/syntax for creating dependencies from a given version to the next major? Something similar to the current "twiddle-waka" which will yield a "Pessimistic version constraint", but so that it'll always cap the upper boundary to the next major, even if minimum would be a patch version.

So for example a new operator ~>> ("twiddle-waka-waka" is that then ;)) that would do just that. Broken into examples below (I'll show the difference to related "twiddle-waka" results also):

nuget DotLiquid ~>> 2.0.174     # results x >= 2.0.174 && x < 3.0
nuget DotLiquid ~>  2.0.174     # results x >= 2.0.174 && x < 2.1
nuget DotLiquid ~>> 2.0         # results x >= 2.0 && x < 3.0
nuget DotLiquid ~>  2.0         # results x >= 2.0 && x < 3.0 (same result with both operators)

I really like the "twiddle-waka", but I have found myself longing for this other shortcut as well. As most of the times what I actually want is exactly what described here (I want to have at least a specific patch and am happy to upgrade to anything up to the next major as the given nuget mainter has promised to follow SemVer).

[Gonnagle]

This could probably be labeled as "enhancement"? Or should I make a distinct issue requesting the proposed new operator?

[haf]

Yes; @Gonnagle that's a good idea, but I think this issue already requests that operator, don't you?