Dylan Baker

the case of having various language supported standards is one that seems quite common. Being able to document the language standard(s) you support as a dependency is a common problem...

how do you request that you want a different standard though? This is important because in C you are (except in rare cases) safe to use a newer standard, but...

That sounds like semantic versioning, 1.1 is a strict superset of 1.0, and 1.2 is a strict superset of 1.1, so a 1.0 document is a valid 1.2 document (or...

"don't let perfect be the enemy of better?" :) I would assume though that after a while version bumps would become pretty rare (obviously like anything new we're likely to...

Okay. Conceptually "Interface" sounds more to me like "We renamed this component, and this 'Interface' maintains backwards compat" or "we have 100 implementation details but 10 supported 'Interfaces'", which sound...

I think it would be useful to enumerate some of the common uses we envision for "interfaces"; or to mention that header-only libraries would be represented by "interfaces".

I really wanted to start a conversation. I had dismissed the `m.cps` plan out of hand because the main provider of these libs is glibc, who has, in the past,...

I would conceptually put threading support here as well. It's even more special since you have winpthreads.

It seems like at the moment we're discussing three issues: 1. dependencies that are actually compiler features (threading, OpenMP) 2. libraries that may be provided by the base OS (but...

> When you mean upstream, do you mean the package maintainers or the library maintainers? Library maintainers. When package maintainers provide their own pkg-config files it ends up being a...