On Sunday, May 19, 2019 3:41:59 PM EDT Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > I would like to ask/get a consensus on a sensible "official > non-official" Debian backporting version scheme for 3rd party > packages. > > The goal is to be able to provide non-official packages that do > integrate within current Debian ones *but* do not interfere with > normal Debian stable/backports. > > I think an example will help here. My main goal is to be able to > provide [1] Qt backports. Due to Qt's private API usage of third party > packages (kwin, for example) we Qt/KDE maintainers can't provide an > official Debian backport package, as it would require binNMUs of > stable packages living in backports :-/ > > [1] source at first maybe, amd64 later if I can get the necessary > build power and bandwith. > > Yes, being"official non official" packages things might break, but > think of it as a PPA that blends and plays as nice as possible within > Debian. > > Normally one should propose an idea of how this versioning should be, > but I'm currently not sure of a nice way and I'm also pretty sure I'm > not the first one who thinks about this, so... ideas? > > Regards, Lisandro.
I don't know that we need an official project consensus on this, but I'll offer a suggestion. In Debian we use version-revision (where revision is sometimes complex for backports and stable updates). If you use version-~revision where revision is some thing similar to, but different than that used for security updates, stable updates, or backports, you could be reasonably assured that your non- official version would also sort to a lower revision than the same upstream version from any official repository. Scott K