search

trolando / oink

Oink, an implementation of modern parity game solvers
Apache License 2.0
31 stars 11 forks source link

Packaging oink / tagged releases #23

Open mgttlinger opened 2 days ago

mgttlinger commented 2 days ago

I'm currently in the process of packaging oink in nixpkgs (https://nixos.org/) and this works smoothly out of the box however it would be nice if oink had release version tags like for example the lace library (which I'm also packaging). Otherwise, I have to package git commits which is always rather ugly.

mgttlinger commented 2 days ago

If you're curious why I'm interested in packaging oink:

I'm the current maintainer of the COOL reasoner which currently allows solving with PGSolver and we want to try and implement oink as an alternative parity game solver backend. https://git8.cs.fau.de/software/cool/-/issues/48

For this it would be nice to have oink in nix to easily set up dev and build environments.

trolando commented 2 days ago

Oh, I can make some release tags in the future. Do you have a specific commit that you want tagged now?

On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 4:29 PM Merlin @.***> wrote:

If you're curious why I'm interested in packaging oink:

I'm the current maintainer of the COOL reasoner which currently allows solving with PGSolver and we want to try and implement oink as an alternative parity game solver backend. https://git8.cs.fau.de/software/cool/-/issues/48

For this it would be nice to have oink in nix to easily set up dev and build environments.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/trolando/oink/issues/23#issuecomment-2393847074, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEVYXPKZ5FRJ5VUKLXOLODZZ2Q27AVCNFSM6AAAAABPL7DHKWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGOJTHA2DOMBXGQ . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

trolando commented 2 days ago

This commit is the last commit before I started refactoring things: https://github.com/trolando/oink/commit/73cb0dc817346570498bd3eab196540808b33918

I have not really thought about what kind of versioning to use. We could stick to semantic versioning, call this version 1.1 for now. Or use calendar versioning and call it 2024.07 (July 2024). Suggestions?

mgttlinger commented 2 days ago

As far as versioning schemes go I would prefer semantic versioning as it gives us a clear compatibility path for integrating in our reasoner. I don't have a specific commit I would want to target as we will simply target the current version when doing the integration.