[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Improving in-place upgrades of Ada packages from Lenny to Squeeze



Tero Koskinen wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:19:10 +0200 Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> Over the last two weeks I have been testing upgrades of Ada packages
>> from Lenny to Sid and Squeeze in a chroot.  The picture is not as
pretty
>> as it should be. 
> ...
>> The following packages are "obsolete or locally created" but not marked
>> as broken (even though they are); in Lenny, they lack a dependency on
>> gnat-4.3:
>> 
>> * libahven-dev             (libahven1-dev available)
> 
> I don't understand package versioning very well (even after reading the
> policy), so I am asking where the version number "1" comes from?

In a nutshell, from 5.2 "Library names and packaging structure":

<quote>
Rule: The package maintainer SHALL change the aliversion if and only if
the contents of the *.ali files change.
[...]
Rule: Each Ada library SHALL consist of the following packages:

‘libLIBRARY[-]V-dev’
    the development package containing the static libraries and
    development files, in section libdevel. 
[...]
V
    is the aliversion.
</quote>

Note that this is a concern of the *package maintainer*, not of the
upstream author.  So, it is OK if you don't understand all the reasons
unless you want to participate in the packaging.

> In the Ahven itself, there isn't anything magical in the version
> numbers. For every release I increase the version number by 0.1. There
> might be some API or ABI changes, but those have no effect on version
> number increases.

Precisely: the aliversion reflects API or ABI changes; therefore it
is independent on the upstream version number, so it might as well be
just "1" until a future API or ABI change.

> At the moment, Ahven is at 1.x, but 2.0 will be logical continuation of
> 1.9 and there are no major incompatible changes planned for 2.0
> (or 3.0).
> 
> So, because of Ahven's version numbers, you don't need to add "1" to
> the package name.

Yes you do :) and this has nothing to do with your policy about upstream
version numbers.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.


Reply to: