Re: Bug#950760: RFS: libbpf/0.0.6-1 -- eBPF helper library (development files)
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:07 AM Sudip Mukherjee
<sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:39 AM Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Am 06.02.20 um 09:22 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> > > On 2020-02-06 08:12, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 06-02-2020 00:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 22:42 +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:22 PM Christian Barcenas
> > >>>> <christian@cbarcenas.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Because this changes the versioning scheme from kernel releases
> > >>>>> (libbpf-dev and libbpf0 currently are at 5.4.13-1 in sid) to libbpf
> > >>>>> version numbers (0.0.6-1), the epoch needs to be incremented to 1 I
> > >>>>> believe.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I had this doubt but 5.4.13-1 is the linux source version, and
> > >>>> libbpf0 has the version of 0.0.5. And since there is no separate
> > >>>> source for libbpf so will this not be considered as a new package
> > >>>> rather than a version change?
> > >>>
> <snip>
> >
> > One other alternative could be, to ask your upstream to change the
> > versioning scheme and instead of using 0.0.6, switch to 6.0.0 as first
> > version number (which would be higher then 5.x)
> > Other distros might have similar problems.
>
> I think other distros already had the package split and are now using
> the source from github. Atleast Fedora and Gentoo have done already.
> Looks like Fedora solved the problem using epoch as can be seen in the
> comment at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libbpf/blob/f30/f/libbpf.spec#_15
And, I have confirmed from Jiri who is the Fedora maintainer for
libbpf that they have used epoch to solve the version problem.
So, do we also use epoch or shall I try the way which Paul suggested
to add epoch only to the binary package?
--
Regards
Sudip
Reply to: