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

Re: Version numbering for security uploads of native packages

On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 11:22 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 09:06 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> >> Good idea.  Even better, IMO, would be to use a system which is in
> >> line with non-native packages.  How about this rule:
> > [using X.1]
> >> IMO this solution is slightly better than +nmu1, because it makes
> >> versions of native and non-native packages more uniformly mangled.
> >> However, any solution is better than no solution. :-)
> >
> > That does seem the most logical suggestion thus far.
> I dislike this approach because it makes it impossible for tools like
> Lintian to recognize NMUs of native packages and perform other
> NMU-specific checks (such as making sure an appropriate changelog entry is
> present).  There's no way of knowing whether a native package with a
> version number of 1.2.1 is an NMU or not.

Indeed. Luk already pointed out on irc that this is the (or at least a)
reason .1 wasn't suggested by DevRef.

> I like the +nmuN approach.

devscripts 2.10.19 including +nmuN was uploaded earlier this evening.


Reply to: