> On 12.06.25 14:27, Athos Ribeiro wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 05:10:44PM +0000, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>>> I am a little late to the party.
>>
>> Way later here :)
>
> I just discussed this with some people at DebConf in the context of rust-hwlib,
> which is another Ubuntu-native package. I guess the general suggestion is to
> avoid Ubuntu-native packages in the first place, thus avoiding this whole
> situation, as we can just use a common VERSION-0ubuntuX version string.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I agree the "0" after "ubuntu" doesn't serve any purpose and "dch -i"
> will increase it to "ubuntu1", which is not exactly what we want for
> native packages.
>
>>> 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.
>
> But (compared to the above) "dch -i" in this pure "ubuntu" case produces a
> "ubuntuubuntu1" version string, which is even worse than the "ubuntu1" above.
> It makes obvious that something is wrong, but makes automation harder.
>
>>> 2. Use `0ubuntu[version]` instead of `[version]ubuntu0`.
>
> This variation fixes the "dch -i" and automation usecases by bumping it to
> 0ubuntuVERSION+1, i.e. the correct thing to do for native packages, but it
> is a very unusual and non-intuitive version sting that would most probably
> confuse developers looking at it. – It would confuse me and I'd likely
> nitpick about it during a review.
>
>
> So in summary, I feel like each variation has its own drawbacks, with
> "ubuntu0" (while not ideal) being the most intuitive and pragmatic approach.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lukas
>
Hey!
I've created a patch which implements the proper increments for ubuntu-native packages with suffix `ubuntu` instead of `ubuntu0` :)
What else is in the way to use the `ubuntu`-suffix for our native packages?
Cheers
-- JJ
From 0c1147316694013d75072db1fa86e459476a8416
From: Jonas Jelten <jonas.jelten@canonical.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 15:06:32 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] debchange: ubuntu native packages version increment support
this supports ubuntu native packages with the form
${version}ubuntu
---
scripts/debchange.pl | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
test/test_debchange | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/debchange.pl b/scripts/debchange.pl
index 6d35338f..0a16d504 100755
--- a/scripts/debchange.pl
+++ b/scripts/debchange.pl
@@ -1336,12 +1336,23 @@ if ((
and $start !~ /(ubuntu|~ppa)(\d+\.)*$/
and not $opt_U) {
- if ($start =~ /build/) {
- # Drop buildX suffix in favor of ubuntu1
- $start =~ s/build//;
- $end = "";
+ if ($start =~ /(.*?)(ubuntu)?(build)/) {
+ # Drop 'buildX' suffix in favor of 'ubuntu' or 'ubuntu1'
+ $start = $1;
+ $end = $2 || '';
+ }
+
+ # ubuntu-native package with form "${version}ubuntu"
+ if ($end =~ '^ubuntu' and
+ $start =~ /(.*?)(\d+)$/i) {
+ my $versionhead = $1;
+ my $versiontail = $2;
+ $versiontail++;
+ $start = "$versionhead$versiontail";
+ }
+ else {
+ $end .= "ubuntu1";
}
- $end .= "ubuntu1";
} elsif (($opt_i or $opt_s)
and $vendor eq 'Tanglu'
and $start !~ /(tanglu)(\d+\.)*$/
diff --git a/test/test_debchange b/test/test_debchange
index bba2a797..94899bcd 100755
--- a/test/test_debchange
+++ b/test/test_debchange
@@ -159,6 +159,9 @@ testUbuntuIncrement() {
checkUbuntuVersion "-i" "0.45-2ubuntu3" "0.45-2ubuntu4"
checkUbuntuVersion "-i" "0.45-2ubuntu3.1" "0.45-2ubuntu3.2"
checkUbuntuVersion "-i" "0.45-2ubuntu3.1.0" "0.45-2ubuntu3.1.1"
+ checkUbuntuVersion "-i" "1ubuntu" "2ubuntu"
+ checkUbuntuVersion "-i" "1.2ubuntu" "1.3ubuntu"
+ checkUbuntuVersion "-i" "3.1.2ubuntubuild10" "3.1.3ubuntu"
}
testUbuntuRebuild() {
@@ -170,6 +173,8 @@ testUbuntuRebuild() {
checkUbuntuVersion "-R" "2.0-4" "2.0-4build1"
checkUbuntuVersion "-R" "1.42-4ubuntu5" "1.42-4ubuntu6"
checkUbuntuVersion "-R" "0.1-2build3" "0.1-2build4"
+ checkUbuntuVersion "-R" "0.1ubuntu" "0.1ubuntubuild1"
+ checkUbuntuVersion "-R" "0.2ubuntubuild1" "0.2ubuntubuild2"
}
verifyMaintainer() {
--
2.48.1
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
