On 4/30/20 2:50 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Lev Lamberov (2020-04-30 14:40:53)
Чт 30 апр 2020 @ 14:06 Jan Wielemaker <j.wielema...@vu.nl>:
On 4/30/20 1:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I think we can use the format almost as-is - just replacing the
leading "swipl-" with "swi-prolog-abi-".
I think adding "abi" makes sense. I can replace "swipl" with the
package name, which is "swi-prolog" for Debian.
I'm thinking about something like as follows:
Provides: swi-prolog-abi-$(swipl:ABI)
where $(swipl:ABI) will be set in d/rules in override_dh_gencontrol
target, so actually it doesn't matter what is the original output of
swipl --abi_version, since we have sed and other tools to make it as
we like. What do you think, Jonas?
I agree with Lev. That is what I tried to say above as well (that we
can _take_ it as-is and will need to massage it only slightly), but I
see now that it can just as easily be read as meaning the opposite (that
we would need a slightly different format).
So to (try) clarify: I think it is *perfect* usable for Debian that
upstream code emits "swipl-2-67-792e14f8-de23899e" when asked for its
ABI.
I did change it now to be $SWIPL_PKG_NAME-abi-*, where the default
SWIPL_PKG_NAME is derived from $SWIPL_INSTALL_DIR if it contains
something usable and "swipl" otherwise (some installations set this
to ".").
I don't think you care too much. Unless there is a real need to
change I'll keep it that way. It is nicely informative. If you
just want the numbers you can delete `^.*-abi-`.
Cheers --- Jan
Sorry for the confusion.
- Jonas
