On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 07:02:06AM +0000, Simon Quigley wrote: > I can think of one specific case where an exception to the rule would be > warranted, and it is somewhat rare. > > Sometimes, we need to introduce a brand-new source package late in a cycle, > for a good reason. Take the extreme case where the Debian NEW queue is like, > 1000 packages. Rust, or something. > > That package is uploaded to both Ubuntu and Debian at the same time. The > uploader states their good reason, an AA does a full review, it gets accepted > with a lower version number (0ubuntu1). > > The package is then accepted into Debian at some later point, with the exact > same (de-facto) maintainer. For the sake of argument, the uploader is both a > Debian Developer and an Ubuntu Core Developer. It would make sense to drive > that through in Debian most of the time.
This is a good example of an edge case. Thanks! If I may draw a clear line around it, I suggest that this is the case where a Debian upload with the same source package name is "locked" to a person or team through an an existing ITP bug in Debian, and the Ubuntu uploader is the same person or team. If this is a short term thing, then I don't think that adding something to debian/README.source is even worth it. It might be a good idea to define some recommendations around package version strings to use in this case, but I think that's best deferred as it seems more scope creep than needed for this particular thread. I'd be happy just to treat this case (as I've tried to define in the previous paragraph) as out of the scope of the general recommendation to always use `ubuntu` for Ubuntu-specific packages.
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
