On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:14:01PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:20:22PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: > > 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. > > Why couldn't a security change require making incompatible changes to > something? A bin NMU would hopefully never change any such thing > though. > I am not saying that such a thing couldn't happen, simply that a security update is much less likely to cause it. > > 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. > > But isn't the idea that the version in test/unstable should _always_ be > higher than the version in stable including security versions? That > makes incrementing 'w' not an option. > Well, the ~ character is stated to be evaluated to be less than the empty string. If a package is the target of a security upload in stable, you can be certain that the testing/unstable version will also increase when the new package is introduced to fix the problem there as well. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature