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

Re: Mysterious NMU (Bug #423455)



On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
> > 1.0.1-2) be more correct?  That way the package is still binNMU safe and
> > also safe from breaking if incompatibilities are introduced in the next
> > source upload?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Roberto
> 
> (>= version) and (<< next-version).
> 
> The problem is knowing next-version. 1.0.1-2 is not the next
> version. For example a NMU of 1.0.1-1.1 is less. Also 1.0.1-1lenny1
> (security update for lenny) is less than 1.0.1-2. There could also be
> an 1.0.1-2~rc1, again less than 1.0.1-2.
> 
Yes, but in reality what is the likelihood that either a security update
or NMU would introduce an incompatible change?  I would say that such a
possibility is extremely low.

> And now for something really ugly:
> 
> % dpkg --compare-versions "1.0.1-1lenny1" "<<" "1.0.1-1+b1" && echo yes
> yes
> 
> So a security upload of the package has a smaller version than a
> binNMU upload. At that point you are pretty much screwed.
> 
Perhaps the policy should change so that security uploads are done with
x.y.z-(w++)~lenny1?  That is, the Debian version number gets
incremented.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: