Web lists-archives.com

Re: Official non-official Debian backporting versioning scheme




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