Re: Version numbering for security uploads of native packages
On 2008-03-16, Adam D. Barratt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 03:47 -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.
> That makes sense, although doesn't seem to match current practice. Was
> any consideration given as to where NMUs of native packages should sort?
> (I realise that they're the only case that doesn't automagically dtrt
> with respect to the numbering scheme).
We'll adapt our practise to use +etchX for security updates.