version naming for extras apps

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:35:48AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Allison Randal [2010-12-22 12:27 -0800]:
> > In ARB apps, we're getting some non-standard version numbers in packages 
> > like 1.0-maverick1 or 1.0-0extras1. We would like to set a standard and 
> > stick with it.
> 
> I mostly agree to Colin's points, in particular that we should keep
> them smaller than -1, and that we should keep the revision part.
> 
> I actually like -0maverick1. It makes it clear that this is not a
> Debian or Ubuntu package, and it provides a straightforward naming
> schema for uploading/building the same package for different Ubuntu
> releases (which will happen often).

This is a good point - it's sensible to have a rationale for extra
furniture in the version number.

We're already half-way through the alphabet, though, so we should
future-proof any scheme like this by making it be based on the Ubuntu
release version number rather than the codename.  (Ironically, this
might bring us back to having "ubuntu" in the version number, but at
least there'll be a reason for it ...)

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]