Re: version number when packaging a new upstream release
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 05:21:41PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:03:59PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > I would say that -0+deb7u1 is a little unusual.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'd suggest to use 6:0.8.18-1+deb7u3 because it's the third update of
> that package within Debian 7.
The version number should not depend on whether 0.8.18 was ever
in unstable.
In the general case it is even possible that the package was removed
from unstable, but later someone ITPs 6:0.8.18-1 into unstable. At that
point the version in oldstable would be higher than the version in
unstable.
A hypothetical NMU adding the new version to unstable would be -0.1
It also makes sense to stay below that.
-0+deb7u1 makes sense because it is below that.
Regarding deb7u1 versus deb7u3, this is the first update of the
"special" -0 package in Debian 7.
Precedents in DSAs also suggests -0+deb7u1
http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3624
http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3666
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: