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. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
