Le 02/10/2021 à 13:17, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : > Le samedi 02 octobre 2021 à 11:06 +0200, Vincent Prat a écrit : >> Le 27/09/2021 à 17:26, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : >>> 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 is out of date compared to the standalone version (currently 5.1.7) used 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 c) packaging an outdated version of python-suitesparse-graphblas to fit 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. > Actually there is no need to increase an epoch. There is already one on > libgraphblas5, and we’re just talking about moving that binary package > to a new source package, so it’s inevitable that the epoch has to stay. > I don’t think that requires a discussion on debian-devel@. > > Please let me know when you want to move on with all this, so that I > make the necessary changes in src:suitesparse in a coordinated fashion. > > Best, > What should be the version of the new binary package, then? The version of SuiteSparse itself (5.10.1) is higher than that of standalone GraphBLAS (5.1.7). Do you suggest something like 1:5.10.1+really5.1.7+dfsg-1?
Best regards, Vincent
