Scott James Remnant wrote:
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:Changing the security update policy to call packages "1.2-3+sec-woody1" as well would solve it though.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.The theory for using '+' was that it sorts *lower* than '.',
Oh, well, /my/ theory for using it was that it was visually distinguishable from the normal "." separated versions we're used to.
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.
Nah, the reason we don't use that form today is that we use the "1.2-3woody1" form instead. I don't think the "-1.woody.1" form is all that good though, since it compares greater than a possible "-1.5" version in sarge -- also unhelpful is that it'd be a higher version that "-1.sarge.1". Using "+secN", and not including the distribution codename at all would be reliable in all cases, I think (except for the existing "-N.0.1" binNMUs of course).
(That leaves backports out in the cold still though, but -XwoodyY is probably fine for them anyway)
Description: OpenPGP digital signature