Bug#950760: RFS: libbpf/0.0.6-1 -- eBPF helper library (development files)

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 09:39:29 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 06.02.20 um 09:22 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> > On 2020-02-06 08:12, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > But, if I am correct, the source could be using a version without epoch
> > > and only use the epoch in the binary package (which can be dropped if
> > > libbpf0 is ever replaced by libbpf1).
> > 
> > Yes. It's a little more work on the packaging side, but entirely
> > possible to do it that way.

While this case is precisely what epochs were designed for, I'd still
try to minimize its usage here as much as possible. And go for no
epoch on the source packages, and prefixing the epoch in the binary
packages, because the one in libbpf1 could then be dropped.

> There is also libbpf-dev, which could not drop the epoch on a soname
> bump. Would be kinda odd if going forward libbpfx would not have an
> epoch and libbpf-dev does.

We already have similar cases in the archive. And the nice thing of
not going with a full epoch bump is that it can always be bumped for
the source later on, while the reverse is not possible. :)

> 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.

That might be even better, yes. :)

Thanks,
Guillem