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

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Stephen Leake wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> For the purposes of this discussion, there are five reasons a Debian
> package source version needs to change:
>
> 1) The upstream Ada source changes, changing the ali files.
>
> 2) The upstream non-Ada source changes, not changing the ali files.
>
> 3) Debian maintainer patches Ada source files, changing the ali files.
>
> 4) A library the package depends on changes its ali files; Debian
>    maintainer recompiles, changing the ali files. This includes the
>    case of a GNAT compiler version change.
>
> 5) Debian maintainer patches non-Ada source files (this includes
>    Debian packaging files, such as 'control' and 'rules'), not
>    changing the ali files.

Wow, that's a nice and systematic analysis. Thank you.

[...]
> If we use the version number in build dependencies, we need an
> expression that allows both non-Ada parts to change without causing a
> FTBFS. To do that, we need all the parts that are allowed to change at
> the end, so they can be covered by a single ~:
>
> <upstream-ada>-<debian-ada-patch>-<library-ali>-<upstream-non-Ada>-<debian-non-ada-patch>
>
> This does not follow the Debian policy, since there is an upstream
> part in the middle of the Debian part, but it has a valid rationale,
> so I think we should just use it, or get a waiver, or propose a mod to
> the Debian policy.
[...]
> As an example, the OpenToken upstream version would be "A3.1a-N2" (Ada
> part 3.1a, non-Ada part 2, no library-ali part since it is not a
> binary distribution), and the Debian version "A3.1a-0-1-N2-1".

We could use a separator different from '-' so as not to violate the
Debian Policy as much and we do not need a change to the Policy. Also,
let's put the two Debian-specific parts after the '-'. For example
OpenToken would be:

libopentoken-dev (=3.1a+2-1+1)

where:
upstream_ada = 3.1a
upstream_non_ada = 2
library_ali = <empty>
debian_ada_patch = 1
debian_non_ada_patch = 1

> In summary, I don't see sufficient advantage to putting the version
> number in the -dev package name. The only advantage I see is it forces
> developers to get the dependencies right. It has the significant
> disadvantages of the extra burden on Debian release managers, and the
> additional tarnishing of the Ada image.

I personally think the complicated version numbers would contribute to
such tarnishing just as much as having part of the version number in
the package name. In addition they are a burden on the maintainers
worse than the solution I proposed. But let's hear other opinions :)

> The version numbering scheme proposed here violates Debian policy, but
> I see including the version number in the -dev package name as a worse
> violation of Debian policy.

Version numbers in the names of packages do not violate Debian Policy;
they are allowed specifically to allow several versions of a -dev
package to be installed simultaneously. e.g. see libboost1.40-all-dev,
currently in testing.

> We can work on adding a rule to lintian to help developers get the
> build dependencies right.

I honestly don't think a rule in lintian would be that easy to
formulate or implement; for starters, it would have to distinguish
packages built from Ada sources from those build from other languages.
Asking for such special treatment would definitely, IMHO, tarnish
Ada's image.

--
Ludovic Brenta.