Bug#694872: Why was this bug closed?
Hi Mike,
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:20:25PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Well, I thought this was only the case when there is no other option, because
> > the version has to be smaller than the one in unstable (when testing has
> > 4.3.6-1 and unstable has 4.3.6-2 with unacceptable changes). I did a t-p-u
> > update like this (without the deb7u suffix) yesterday (for fossil), which was
> > approved by the release team without any remarks.
> >
> > But I'm happy to change the version number if you like.
>
> +debXuY is the correct suffix for updates to wheezy and all future
> stable releases. See:
> http://bugs.debian.org/542288
Well, the discussion is about what the suffix should be, not when it should be
used. And there isn't really any sign of consensus about '+debXuY' in the bug
report. Several possibilities are mentioned, but +debXuY is only mentioned
twice, both times by you. That consensus was probably reached elsewhere.
If you read the proposed policy text, it only talk about "the non-native
package was uploaded by someone other than the maintainer", which is the case
in my upload. It doesn't talk about proposed updates (in the entire bug
report, proposed updates is only mentioned once, in reference to a change in
the upload checks).
In fact, if you read the proposed policy text strictly, it forces the use of
'.1' (non-native) or +nmu1 (native or non-native) on ALL NMU's, without
exceptions for proposed updates (or even security updates). I don't know if
that's the intention of the proposal. This is also what dch currently does,
even with '--security'.
Cheers,
Ivo
Reply to: