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

Re: binNMU version detection

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:42:54PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Later, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The primary aim of this change was to address the fact that there was no
> > consistent numbering scheme that satisfies the constraint
> > binNMU < security NMU < source NMU.

> The problems with this were due to security NMUs, weren't they?  The old 
> binNMU numbering scheme makes them consistently and reliably less than
> the source NMU numbering.

Um, the problems were due to being unable to choose version numbers for
security NMUs which would reliably sort between binNMUs and regular source

> So the binNMU numbering was changed so as to make it possible for the security 
> team to name their uploads while guaranteeing that they would sort above 
> binNMUs and below regular NMUs?


> Despite this, the current security team upload naming *doesn't work*.  I've 
> seen "5.8.4-8sarge3" in a recent upload of perl:
> $dpkg --compare-versions 5.8.4-8sarge3 gt 5.8.4-8+b1 || echo false
> false
> So this sorts below the binNMU.

Well, yes.  The security team also doesn't do uploads to testing, and there
are no packages so numbered in stable at present, so it's not exactly
critical that they change their practices immediately.

> > And contrary to Nathanael's 
> > protestations, this was discussed publically on debian-devel -- a year ago
> > -- and this solution arrived at with the input of an ftpmaster and the
> > then-current dpkg maintainer, among others.

> Ah.  I must have missed that discussion.  Pointer?

<waves in the general direction of the -devel archives>

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: