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-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: RFC: Debian Policy for Ada, Fourth Edition for Debian 6.0
	"Squeeze"
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <b8356018-a7f4-42a7-b0a5-efa86b2a58df@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <e2b201bc-e1c6-4303-9ea0-d2bd136c450b@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
	<uvdiberoe.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <5ce2b9d6-478c-4a03-93c0-289e6559e199@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<uiqeaebv5.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1256031721 7684 127.0.0.1 (20 Oct 2009 09:42:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:42:01 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s6g2000vbp.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:8744
Date: 2009-10-20T02:42:01-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.