From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,47bc8b783af4aa38 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: RFC: Debian Policy for Ada, Fourth Edition for Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <5ce2b9d6-478c-4a03-93c0-289e6559e199@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1255941096 7611 127.0.0.1 (19 Oct 2009 08:31:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:31:36 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197; posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8729 Date: 2009-10-19T01:31:36-07:00 List-Id: 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 > =A0 =A0maintainer recompiles, changing the ali files. This includes the > =A0 =A0case of a GNAT compiler version change. > > 5) Debian maintainer patches non-Ada source files (this includes > =A0 =A0Debian packaging files, such as 'control' and 'rules'), not > =A0 =A0changing 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 ~: > > ---- > > 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 (=3D3.1a+2-1+1) where: upstream_ada =3D 3.1a upstream_non_ada =3D 2 library_ali =3D debian_ada_patch =3D 1 debian_non_ada_patch =3D 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.