Re: Version numbering for security uploads of native packages
Bas Wijnen <email@example.com> writes:
> Ok, that makes sense. However, with +nmu1, there still is the problem
> of how to name security uploads. With +s1, they sort after +nmu1, which
> I think is wrong.
There's no reason why we have to stick to one suffix. +s1+nmu1 for an NMU
after a security upload is ugly but functional, and the next maintainer
release would reset all the suffixes anyway. Likewise with appending
another +bN for a binary NMU. As near as I can tell, since you would
never base an NMU or security update on a binary NMU, the worst case is
+s1+nmu1+b1, which isn't really that horrible.
> Turning "debian" into "deb" and "testing" into "+" would make it better
> "1.7.5+nmu3+deb3.1+.1" is comparable in length to the current
If you go this route, please make it +deb31, not +deb3.1. The extra dot
is historically special and indicates a binNMU.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>