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:
> The build-depends expression would be a simple =, since any change is
> (treated as) an ali change:
>
> libLIBRARY (= <upstream-ada>-<debian-ada-patch-and-library-ali>)

No, that would be

libLIBRARY-<upstream-ada>-<debian-ada-patch-and-library-ali>-dev

without a version number.

> Now the build-depends solution is slightly less burden on Ada package
> maintainers (changing a build-depends expression is slightly easier
> than changing a package name; the package name occurs in more places).

Actually I think the opposite is true: the if you build-depend on a -
dev package,
getting its name right is easy (copy and paste). In contrast, getting
the version number *range* right is difficult, especially if the
version numbering scheme is very complex.

> In summary, I guess I'm moving more towards accepting the version in
> -dev package name solution, _if_ we allow it to be a simple integer
> in appropriate cases (different from the soversion integer, and
> unrelated to the upstream version).
>
> The Debian Ada policy could allow either solution, as long as all the
> consequences of the choice are clearly explained.

e.g.

source: opentoken (=4.0-1)
binary: libopentoken0-dev (=4.0-1)
binary: libopentoken5 (=4.0-1)
binary: libopentoken5-dbg (=4.0-1)
binary: libopentoken0-dev (=4.0-1)

?

Yes, I like that.

--
Ludovic Brenta.