Consistency of package versioning in Ubuntu-only packages

[Julian Andres Klode]

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.
-- 
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20250408/53ba8ec8/attachment.sig>