[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: binary NMUs and version numbers

Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 08:58 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
One idea was to use for binary-only NMU as 1.2-3b1.
Actually, it was 1.2-3+b1, iirc. Maybe I missed some later discussion.
Yes, it was +b1 ... for the following reason:
This has the advantage
that current dpkg can handle it, and also that britney doesn't get confused
any more. However, it doesn't solve the second issue.
Changing the security update policy to call packages "1.2-3+sec-woody1" as well would solve it though.
The theory for using '+' was that it sorts *lower* than '.',

Oh, well, /my/ theory for using it was that it was visually distinguishable from the normal "." separated versions we're used to.

so we could use 1.2-3.woody.1 or similar. The reason we don't use that form today,
iirc, is that it confuses the current "is it a Bin-NMU?" check.

Nah, the reason we don't use that form today is that we use the "1.2-3woody1" form instead. I don't think the "-1.woody.1" form is all that good though, since it compares greater than a possible "-1.5" version in sarge -- also unhelpful is that it'd be a higher version that "-1.sarge.1". Using "+secN", and not including the distribution codename at all would be reliable in all cases, I think (except for the existing "-N.0.1" binNMUs of course).

(That leaves backports out in the cold still though, but -XwoodyY is probably fine for them anyway)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: