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

Re: binary NMUs and version numbers

On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:22:35PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:

> >  - 1.2-3+b1
> > 
> >    "Plus build #n" style; this clearly identifies the fact that it's a
> >    bin-NMU in all situations.  It does not pass (c), however we can
> >    alter the security and cdd upload format to +sec-woody1 (or any other
> >    string matching +[^ab]).
> > 
> >  - 1.2-3^1
> > 
> >    "Build epoch" style; this would require changes to dpkg and APT's
> >    versioning scheme, requiring a skipped-release use delay.  ^ would
> >    sort less than everything, including letters, so passes all 3.

> > My personal feeling currently gravitates towards the +b1 form, with
> > +sec-woody1 and +patch-ubuntu1 as possible security and cdd forms; I
> > don't think we have enough time to get the build epoch style into all
> > the required software and tested before sarge.

> I guess we have enough time for even doing the build epoch right before
> release of sarge. And, frankly speaking, I think we should first do the
> right decision, based on the technical facts, and than consider how we
> can implement the best solution.

> My personal feeling is different to yours: I prefer the build epoch
> solution, because I consider it the cleaner solution, even if it
> requires changes to some packages. However, even if you disagree and go
> to the +b-solution, I would prefer that much to the current one, and so
> I hope that we are able to finalize the decision soon.

One concern I have is that there are a finite number of sanely usable ASCII
characters that aren't already spoken for, and that the remainder should be
used sparingly.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: