Should PPAs be forced to specify a ~ppa1 or similar in the package version?

[Scott Kitterman]

On Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:25:31 AM Michael Terry wrote:
> On 02/04/11 09:56, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> > This has long been "good practice" for a variety of reasons
> 
> I agree with all your reasons, but tend to prefer ~lucid1, ~maverick1,
> etc. in case the same package is available for multiple releases.
> -mt

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.

I believe this is a best practice that should be documented somewhere in the 
Launchpad documentation.  I don't think PPA use is something we need a UDS 
session for.

Scott K