Re: GraphBLAS and SuiteSparse
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 is out of date compared to the standalone version (currently 5.1.7) used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 c) packaging an outdated version of python-suitesparse-graphblas to fit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
Reply to: