[gnutls-help] Guile-Gnutls bindings to separate git repo?

[Simon Josefsson]

Andreas Metzler <ametzler at bebt.de> writes:

> On 2022-10-07 Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> One question is about version numbers.. it should probably have its own
>> version number, right?  Would starting at 0.0.0 be a problem for
>> packaging, or should we start with 3.7.8 (upstream gnutls version) and
>> then count upwards (separate from GnuTLS versions) from there?  I
>> prefer starting with 0.0.0 and using semantic versioning from the
>> start.
>
> We my Debian hat on: Pretty pretty please use a version number > 3.7.8
> to allow a simple upgrade from guile-gnutls 3.7.8 to the new separate
> version. (Instead of requiring fiddling and ugliness with empty
> transition packages or epoch.)

Okay that works, and I think we should make a guile-gnutls 3.7.8 release
with as little non-build changes as possible.  From then on, the
versioning is independent of GnuTLS -- and I think it would be nice to
do a quick 4.0.0 to establish a new base to stand on for guile-gnutls.

> Restarting version also imho does not make sense: Afaiui the next
> guile-gnutls will not be something totaly new but essentially 3.7.8
> with a changed README. The version number should reflect that. Or do you
> envision a rename, too?

There has never been a source package 'guile-gnutls' before, so what
version we use should not matter.  If it makes Debian packaging upgrades
easier for the _binary_ guile-gnutls package if we start on 3.7.8, that
seems like a weak but sufficient argument for doing it (unless there is
any arguments against using 3.7.8, which I don't see currently).

/Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnutls-help/attachments/20221010/573d5993/attachment.sig>