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

Re: GraphBLAS and SuiteSparse



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 is out of date compared to the standalone version (currently 5.1.7) used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 c) packaging an outdated version of python-suitesparse-graphblas to fit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.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  https://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: