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

Re: binary NMUs and version numbers

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 08:58 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > One idea was to use for binary-only NMU as 1.2-3b1. 
> Actually, it was 1.2-3+b1, iirc. Maybe I missed some later discussion.
Yes, it was +b1 ... for the following reason:

> > This has the advantage
> > that current dpkg can handle it, and also that britney doesn't get confused
> > any more. However, it doesn't solve the second issue.
> Changing the security update policy to call packages "1.2-3+sec-woody1" 
> as well would solve it though.
The theory for using '+' was that it sorts *lower* than '.', so we could
use 1.2-3.woody.1 or similar.  The reason we don't use that form today,
iirc, is that it confuses the current "is it a Bin-NMU?" check.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: