From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id uCdyCBPH616nMwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:57:07 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id wDYtBBPH614ASwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:57:07 +0000 Received: from arlo.cworth.org (arlo.cworth.org [50.126.95.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ED6F940539 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198656DE0E8B; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:57:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cb2QMZtfw3cP; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arlo.cworth.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B9C6DE0B64; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D216DE0B64 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:56:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z1Al59RLiqUq for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595786DE0AC7 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fethera.tethera.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id ABFA4613A5; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (nullmailer pid 1709797 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:56:51 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Frank LENORMAND , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [python-cffi] Version number for the `notmuch2` bindings In-Reply-To: <159249299110.2148623.13329635762636805277@localhost.localdomain> References: <159249299110.2148623.13329635762636805277@localhost.localdomain> X-List-To: notmuch Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:56:51 -0300 Message-ID: <878sgktaf0.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org Sender: "notmuch" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 50.126.95.6 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: kvwFQDUccSCr Frank LENORMAND writes: > Hi, > > The original Python bindings follow the entire repository's version > number[1]. The new Python bindings use `0.1`[2]. > > The Debian package[3] follows the same version number as well, but > it's starting to confuse maintainers of packages for other environments > (e.g. Pypi[4]), who use `0.1` because that's what's in the code. > Since I'm (also) the Debian maintainer, I guess you know my view already. I don't really see the need for an extra version number for the cffi bindings. I'd be happy to provide the same kind sed hackery to keep the two in sync as is done for the old bindings. Floris might have some good reason in mind for the divergence. I will say it's a pain in Debian to have different binary packages (.deb's) built from the same source with different version numbers. So I'd need to be convinced.