<julian.klode@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?
Or am I overlooking how common that scenario would be?
> --
> debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
> ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
--
Christian Ehrhardt
Director of Engineering, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
