Should PPAs be forced to specify a ~ppa1 or similar in the package version?

[Scott Ritchie]

On 04/02/2011 08:08 AM, Felix Geyer wrote:
> On 02.04.2011 16:36, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> My practice is to us ~ppa1 when targeting the development release and 
>> ~release1~ppa1 for previous releases.  This has the advantage of naturally 
>> upgrading to an official backport if one is done since they use a ~releaseX 
>> numbering scheme.  For all the reasons Scott argued for ~ppaX, I think 
>> ~release1~ppaX is the right answer for non-development releases
> 
> That version scheme breaks once we are in the q-series as the p-codename
> might be > "ppa".
> 
> 

Shouldn't official backports replace ppa packages anyway?

So if I forgo making foo-0ubuntu1~qrelease1~ppa1 and instead just do
foo-0ubuntu1~ppa1, and then there's a q-release backport named
foo-0ubuntu1~qrelease1, shouldn't that q-release backport replace my ppa
package?

If said backport already existed when I made my PPA, then I would have
had to have the full ~qrelease1~ppa1 suffix to make it install anyway.

Heck, maybe it's a problem that we aren't yet in Q-release ;)  Perhaps
Mark could be encouraged to name a P adjective that somehow comes later
than ppa, which I guess implies starting with the letters PU.