Re: GraphBLAS and SuiteSparse
Hi Sébastien,
Le 27/09/2021 à 17:26, Sébastien Villemot a écrit :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> Le samedi 25 septembre 2021 à 17:57 +0200, Vincent Prat a écrit :
>> I recently started packaging python-suitesparse-graphblas [1], which is
>> a Python binding of SuiteSparse:GraphBLAS [2].
>> The version of GraphBLAS packaged in Debian comes from a different
>> repository that includes many other pieces of software, SuiteSparse [3].
>> My problem is that the version included in SuiteSparse (currently 5.0.5)
>> is out of date compared to the standalone version (currently 5.1.7) used
>> by python-suitesparse-graphblas.
>>
>> What is the best option?
>> a) packaging the standalone version with a different name
>> b) packaging the standalone version instead of the one included in
>> SuiteSparse
>> c) packaging an outdated version of python-suitesparse-graphblas to fit
>> the version of GraphBLAS included in SuiteSparse
>>
>> As far as I know, other pieces included in SuiteSparse do not depend on
>> GraphBLAS, so I would rather go for option b.
>> Sébastien, can you confirm this ?
> I was not aware that GraphBLAS was also distributed independently of
> SuiteSparse.
>
> I am perfectly fine with option b.
>
> Just note that you will have to be careful with version numbers,
> especially since suitesparse currently has an epoch. The libgraphblas5
> binary package that will be produced by your new source package must
> have a greater version number than the current one.
>
> What I would suggest is to not put the epoch in the new source package
> version, and to only add the epoch on the libgraphblas5 binary package
> (this is technically possible, see e.g. gcc-defaults).
>
> And when libgraphblas bumps its SOVERSION (whichs happens quite
> frequently), then you will be able to drop the epoch and revert to a
> standard versioning scheme.
>
Thank you for your reply.
I think I understand how to do this.
Besides, the Debian policy states that before increasing the epoch, one
should get a consensus on devian-devel, so I guess the discussion has to
move there.
Best regards,
Vincent
Reply to: