On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 05:10:44PM +0000, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am a little late to the party.
Way later here :)
>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.klode at 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.
+1.
I was just reviewing this ubuntu-advantage-tools (pro client) merge
proposal and I realized a new `ubuntu0` suffix was added to the package
version after this discussion.
I understand this was done for the sake of complying with the proposal
in this thread, and more specifically, to Benjamin's reply. However, the
`0` after `ubuntu` seems to serve no purpose there. if we are releasing
version `36ubuntu0` and need to add a missing `Depends` to this native
package, we will bump the version to something like `36.1ubuntu0` and
never to `36ubuntu1`.
This new format seems to hinder automation for tools like `dch` to
automatically bump versions in changelogs.
>
>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).
I like this proposal since it could be adopted/tested without disrupting
the current versioning models of our existing native packages.
>
>2. Use `0ubuntu[version]` instead of `[version]ubuntu0`.
>
>--
>Benjamin Drung
>Debian & Ubuntu Developer
>
--
Athos Ribeiro
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
