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

[Scott Ritchie]

On 04/02/2011 07:36 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.
> 

My thought was that if we made it a forced standard, we could improve
the official ubuntu tools based on the new assumption.

I see bug reports where PPA packages are installed that still managed to
pass apport, for instance.