Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:29:38PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"):
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > I think Steffen's point was that all the hideousness you are talking
> > > about was solved in version a.b.c of the software and if version
> > > a.b.(c+1) builds and passes our test suite it will most probably not
> > > have changed.
> >
> > I think this is a safe assumption provided that upstream has
> > committed to using semver.org.
>
> In general, it depends on an assessment of upstream's practices for
> managing stable release series.
Yes; and semver.org is a formalized system for version numbering stuff.
If upstream has committed to it (and does not make mistakes), then the c
versions in the above example MUST (in the RFC definition of that word)
only contain bugfixes, and no interface changes.
> The Debian maintainer is often in a good position to make that
> assessment.
That's certainly true, regardless of whether upstream uses semantic
versioning.
In other words, this could be a good idea provided that it's not an
automatic thing, and that the maintainer of the package manually jumps
through a few (minor) hoops to make it happen.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
Reply to: