Some packages that are Ubuntu-only have `ubuntu` in the version string, which automatically stops autosync, which is probably what we want.
Other such Ubuntu-only packages do not, so if Debian were to package something with the same source package name, it may autosync, which is probably not what we want. Unless it's in the sync blocklist, but now there are three possible states for an Ubuntu-only package to be with respect to autosync, which is just unnecessary work for concerned reviewers. I just reviewed the following SRUs, which (sort of) uses a mix of both: lxd-installer | 1 | focal | source lxd-installer | 1 | jammy | source lxd-installer | 4 | noble | source lxd-installer | 4ubuntu0.1 | noble-updates | source lxd-installer | 4ubuntu0.2 | noble/unapproved/39f530b | source lxd-installer | 8 | oracular | source lxd-installer | 8.1 | oracular/unapproved/74f18e3 | source lxd-installer | 12 | plucky | source Could we agree that all Ubuntu-only packages SHOULD always contain `ubuntu` in their version string (this would usually be -0ubuntuX or 0ubuntuX[1] if native) then, so that we don't have to think about it? Are there any reasons for an exception to this rule, where an autosync would actually be desirable if Debian were to introduce such a package? If it's not for a common reason, then perhaps an additional policy might be that there SHOULD be something in debian/README.source that explains any deviation from this. Thanks, Robie [1] No need for an epoch to comply though I don't think.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
