On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 03:47:56AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The current binNMU numbering scheme was selected explicitly to allow > security uploads to sort later by numbering as > <last_version>+<release><serial>; e.g., 1.2-5.1+etch1. This could also lead to a problem in very rare cases: If a program has the same version in stable and testing, and gets a security update, then they both get a similar version. For the example, say 1.2-5.1+sarge1 in stable and 1.2-5.1+etch1 in testing. Now the version in testing is lower than that in stable, because "etch" << "sarge" (which is why I didn't use current names, since "lenny" is, by chance, >> "etch"). If this happens close to a release, and there is no new unstable (non-security-versioned) upload migrating to testing, this means users will end up with the oldstable version of the package (which may contain dependencies on wrong library versions, for example). This may never be a problem in reality, but it is a real bug in the numbering scheme, AFAICS. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature