[Pkg-opencl-devel] adding more virtual packages libopencl-1.X-1 ?

[Vincent Danjean]

Le 24/07/2013 13:15, Andreas Beckmann a écrit :
> On 2013-07-24 11:24, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>> - decide the proper name of virtual packages. When updating ocl-icd,
>>   I was thinking that libopencl-1.1-1 also has a meaning: it is an "ABI"
>>   for the libopencl1 library. So, perhaps: libopencl1-abi-1.1 and
>>   libopencl1-abi-1.2
> 
> I think opencl-X.Y is too vague (could be the icd loader, could be a
> working icd, ...)

I agree. My previous mail was not clear but I also come to this
conclusion when testing with ocl-icd.

> Since it should look like a real library package name (but one we will
> never actually use for anything but a virtual package) I wanted the real
> soversion at the end

Ok. I do not understand the final -1 in your initial proposition.
It is clearer now. I will modify ocl-icd to go this path.

> (and opposed any suggestions from the Ubuntu
> maintainers that were extremely misleading like libcuda5.0 and
> libopencl1.1 virtual packages).
> And libfoobar-1.2.3-4 is a quite common library package naming scheme,
> although it usually indicates presence of libfoobar-1.2.3.so.4
[...]
> What about
> 
> libOpenCL.so.1 #PACKAGE# #MINVER#
> | ocl-icd-libopencl1 | libopencl1, libopencl-X.Y-1
> ...
> 
> to ensure we pull in the free library by default even if non-free is
> enabled?

Yes, great idea.

> (only for ocl-icd-libopencl1, vendor-libopencl1 could do
> differently)

They could but, for the ones packaged into Debian, I think it would
be better to push the free implementation. We will see what think
their respective maintainers.

  Regards,
    Vincent