On 04/02/2011 08:08 AM, Felix Geyer wrote: > On 02.04.2011 16:36, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> My practice is to us ~ppa1 when targeting the development release and >> ~release1~ppa1 for previous releases. This has the advantage of naturally >> upgrading to an official backport if one is done since they use a ~releaseX >> numbering scheme. For all the reasons Scott argued for ~ppaX, I think >> ~release1~ppaX is the right answer for non-development releases > > That version scheme breaks once we are in the q-series as the p-codename > might be > "ppa". > >
Shouldn't official backports replace ppa packages anyway? So if I forgo making foo-0ubuntu1~qrelease1~ppa1 and instead just do foo-0ubuntu1~ppa1, and then there's a q-release backport named foo-0ubuntu1~qrelease1, shouldn't that q-release backport replace my ppa package? If said backport already existed when I made my PPA, then I would have had to have the full ~qrelease1~ppa1 suffix to make it install anyway. Heck, maybe it's a problem that we aren't yet in Q-release ;) Perhaps Mark could be encouraged to name a P adjective that somehow comes later than ppa, which I guess implies starting with the letters PU. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
