[Pkg-opencl-devel] New OpenCL Package - Oclgrind

[James Price]

>> Is there a general recommendation about which of these approaches is preferred for Debian?
> 
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html

Thanks. I’ve read this, but it’s still not entirely clear to me what the preferred package/SONAME version scheme is when upstream packages use date-based versioning:

1. Use upstream version numbers, with minor bugfix releases for maintaining the version in stable.
2. Introduce a Debian-specific version number that only updates when an upstream version introduces a breaking API change.

I’m leaning towards option 1. at the moment (which is how the package is set-up at the moment), but would happy to move to 2. (or something else) if that would be preferred. I guess 1. is essentially the situation with the LLVM packages, which break the API with every release.


> the build is not reproducible since the *.pch are differing from run to run,


If the non-reproducibility is a show-stopper I can remove the PCH files from the package since they are optional. It just means the OpenCL kernel compilation times will be significantly longer.


James