Package cvc5.1.1.3-unreleased

[joaomhmpereira]

cvc5.1.1.3-unreleased

OCaml bindings for the cvc5 SMT solver
OCaml bindings for the cvc5 SMT solver

---

• Homepage: https://github.com/formalsec/ocaml-cvc5
• Source repo: git+https://github.com/formalsec/ocaml-cvc5.git
• Bug tracker: https://github.com/formalsec/ocaml-cvc5/issues

---

🐫 Pull-request generated by opam-publish v2.3.0

[joaomhmpereira]

I think this is finally ready for review. A note on the remaining errors:

• smtml errors happen because the current release was using an older pin of the bindings. This will be fixed on smtml's next release (Fix argument type in cvc5 mappings formalsec/smtml#154)
• s390x tests keep failing with a killed process error

[mseri]

Is the version correct? Right now it is going to be released as cvc5 with version 1.1.3-unreleased

Did I understand correctly that we need to add an upper bound to smtml to xcx5 < 1.1.3 ?

[joaomhmpereira]

Is the version correct? Right now it is going to be released as cvc5 with version 1.1.3-unreleased

The version 1.1.3-unreleased refers to the latest version of cvc5 that is available but has not yet been formally released. Maybe it's better to keep the versioning of cvc5 OCaml bindings independent to the version of the actual solver and start at 0.1.0?

Did I understand correctly that we need to add an upper bound to smtml to xcx5 < 1.1.3 ?

This is only the case for smtml.0.1.1 as the issue has been addressed in the following releases

[shonfeder]

The version 1.1.3-unreleased refers to the latest version of cvc5 that is available but has not yet been formally released. Maybe it's better to keep the versioning of cvc5 OCaml bindings independent to the version of the actual solver and start at 0.1.0?

If the intent and nature of these bindings is that are tied to that specific version of cvc5, and entail installation of it and only support compatibility with it, then I think it makes sense to have the version of this package track the version of cvc5 directly. WDYT, ts that the case?

[mseri]

I am not against this. In this case, I think you should release it as version 1.1.3~unreleased. In this way, once 1.1.3 is released, if there are changes, version 1.1.3 will appear as the latest version

[joaomhmpereira]

I am not against this. In this case, I think you should release it as version 1.1.3~unreleased. In this way, once 1.1.3 is released, if there are changes, version 1.1.3 will appear as the latest version

I have corrected the version, I think now it's ready

[mseri]

I will send a pr with the upper bounds of smtml and then publish. Can you look at the failure on debian-unstable? Is that expected?

[mseri]

Thanks