Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2023-07-15 10:05:24) > Quoting Nicolas Boulenguez (2023-07-12 15:55:09) > > The Ada maintainers are considering a new naming scheme for -dev packages, > > where > > libada-foo-dev Provides: libada-foo-dev-HASH. > > source packages Build-Depend: libada-foo-dev > > binary -dev packages Depend: libada-foo-dev-HASH > > The intent is similar to the one of shared object versions, but the > > name changes often (for example, with the architecture) and is > > computed, so virtual packages seem more appropriate. > > > > Policy 3.6 does not disapprove: > > ... should not use virtual package names (except privately, > > amongst a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been > > agreed upon and appear in the list of virtual package names. > > However politeness recommends to ask for objections before polluting > > the package namespace. > > > > Haskell and Ocaml apparently use a similar scheme. > > I have no objections to this - it sounds like a good approach. > > Just want to point out that experience from Rust packaging indicates > that general Debian tooling does a weaker job at dependency resolving > for vritual packages, which (for Rust libraries) causes breakages of > reverse dependencies, and may even (not quite sure) lead to breakage of > testing due to libraries with unsatisfied (dependencies) migrating. I now recall: The Rust library packages wreaking havoc by prematurely entering testing is (at least partly) due to the Rust team choosing to flag all(!) autopkgtests as flaky, so not really a concern for other teams (read: just don't take inspiration from that particular pattern). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature