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

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

Georg Bauhaus wrote in comp.lang.ada:
> Ludovic Brenta schrieb:
>> 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.

Whatever solution we choose has to apply to each package individually;
the GNAT version numbers have nothing to do with the version numbers
of other packages, except that if the .ali files in GNAT change, all
Ada packages need to be rebuilt, thereby producing new .ali files of
their own, with a version number of their own.

>  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 :-)

Yes, "ali" as a prefix would be acceptable, e.g.

libopentoken-dev (= 3.1a+2-1ali1)

that would become libopentoken-dev (= 3.1a+2-1ali1squeeze1) if ever
there is an upload to stable for a security fix, or libopentoken-dev
(= 3.1a+2-1ali1.1) if there is a non-maintainer upload. And then
Ubuntu would probably add its markings on top of that, too :)

Luckily, there is no character in Toy Story named Ali, so there will
not be a clash between the code-name of a Debian release and the
prefixes :)

--
Ludovic Brenta.