Version numbers

Asked by Javier Collado


In the past I was used to upload a package to the PPA using a version number such as 0.2-0ubuntu1 and a series (i.e. jaunty) and later copy the package in launchpad to another series (i.e. karmic) without having to change the version number at all.

Now, I've just started to use autoppa to generate and upload packages for jaunty and karmic since. According to the documentation, I believe that if the package version is something like 0.2-0ubuntu1, the generated packages versions should be: 0.2-jaunty1-0ubuntu1 and 0.2-karmic1-0ubuntu1. However, what I'm getting is 0.2-0ubuntu1.9.04 and 0.2-0ubuntu1.9.10 which is ok, but not exactly what I would like to have.

Hence, my question is if it's possible to keep the version number as passed through the command line. My understanding is that the different version numbers are required to about name conflicts during package generation, but that this could be fixed if different directories were used to write the .changes files. Do you agree on this?

Best regards,

Question information

English Edit question
AutoPPA Edit question
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Jamu Kakar
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Jamu Kakar (jkakar) said :

Hi Javier,

Thanks for sending me a private message about this question. I
didn't realize I had to set myself as an 'Answer Contact', which
I've now done.

The version number scheme changed some time ago, in response to bug
. There's an open bug about making the version scheme
configurable at bug #299036. Right now it's not possible to use the
exact version provided via the command-line. I had never actually
thought about using different version numbers as a way to avoid
.changes name conflicts. The motivation for the current scheme was
(1) to make it possible to upgrade a package with the same
application version from one Ubuntu release to the next and (2) to
also make it possible to easily identify which Ubuntu release a
package is for just by looking at the version number.

I have a couple questions:

1. Is copying a jaunty package to a karmic package important if
   AutoPPA makes building a native karmic package easy?

2. What kind of version scheme would be ideal for you?


Revision history for this message
Javier Collado (javier.collado) said :


1.- I didn't think about upgrading the same package version from one Ubuntu release to the next since the packages I work on don't change depending on the release. Hence, in my case, copying a package or building it from scratch are equivalent actions. Anyway, I think I prefer the way AutoPPA works since maybe in the future this assumption isn't true anymore and I need to keep some parts of the code different depending on the Ubuntu release.

2.- I would just drop the release part (i.e. 9.04, 9.10, etc.) from the version string since I think that in my case this piece of information is somewhat redundant.

Best regards,

Revision history for this message
Best Jamu Kakar (jkakar) said :

AutoPPA's primary use case is to make building packages for many
Ubuntu releases a very straight-forward case. This primary use case
includes handling slight deviations in packaging files to build for
different releases. We could add a --without-custom-version option
to handle your #2, but I don't think it would be worth the trouble
since including the version numbers isn't a real problem, it's just
a cosmetic one.

Revision history for this message
Javier Collado (javier.collado) said :

Thanks Jamu Kakar, that solved my question.

Revision history for this message
Jamu Kakar (jkakar) said :

My pleasure Javier!