Hi, I am a little late to the party.
On Tue, 2025-04-08 at 11:49 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 9:29 AM Julian Andres Klode > <julian.kl...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 02:55:46PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Funny enough I had that same conversation with Scott James Remnant many > > years ago on upstart, which had like 0.1.0-1 versions in Ubuntu at the > > time. > > > > I also had exactly the problem where it synced software-properties > > from Debian because it was not in the blocklist, and software-properties > > Debian packaging ended up weird (0.90debian1, possibly not an actual > > version number) > > > > But also this is going to get even weirder if we have a package we > > develop and start to use the ubuntu version string. Then my Debian > > version of foo 1ubuntu1 will end up 1ubuntu1debian1. > > > > Like I can guarantee you, someone will upload 1ubuntu2 with code > > changes and the Debian uploader will need to package that, rather > > than a 2ubuntu1. > > True and backed with a real story, > but I feel we should still strive to make the normal cases better and > consistent, > despite the existence of edge cases - WDYT? I read the full discussion and the current https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-maintainers-handbook/blob/main/VersionStrings.md I dislike adding `ubuntu0` to Ubuntu native packages because it is confusing. I have different alternatives to propose. We could recommend avoiding native packages for Ubuntu-only packages. This makes it easier for Debian to adopt the package, makes versioning and backports simpler. For example I did this change for Apport and I do not regret it. Alternative ideas: 1. Add `ubuntu` instead of `ubuntu0` as suffix to make it more obvious what is going on. I would less likely change `1ubuntu` into `1ubuntu1` than `1ubuntu0` into `1ubuntu1` (taking the example from Julian). 2. Use `0ubuntu[version]` instead of `[version]ubuntu0`. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
