Re: RFC: Debian Policy for Ada, Fourth Edition for Debian 6.0 "Squeeze"

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Ludovic Brenta schrieb:
> Asking for dpkg to support this solution,
> potentially breaking backward compatibility with archives and making
> in-place upgrades problematic, all for the sole benefit of these few
> languages seems politically suicidal :)

Yes, a change of Unixoids so radical as to be later than the
70s is asking for political noise.  ;-)  That's why extended
attributes need someone whose political statements are being
considered, or else a complete working solution that leaves
no one behind: the two approaches (names, extented attributes)
need not exclude each other.
Backwards compatibility should thus be possible.

> So far, I still think that encoding the ".ali" version number in the
> name of the -dev package (e.g. libopentoken3.1a-dev) is the least ugly
> and least impractical solution.

I like Stephen's prefix characters because the resulting numbers
do not overlap former GNAT version numbers like 3.1a
(vs 3.1p)---which is not what is meant in your
example, I think.  Maybe just use "ali"?  The
substring "ubuntu" seems acceptable in another world
of deb package maintenance, so maybe "ali" isn't be
asking too much of the naming authorities.
It sure requesting a nod to less than using Linux file
system features :-)