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. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part