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

Re: version number when packaging a new upstream release

Hi Raphael and LTS list,

Am 06.10.2016 um 11:53 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> 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.
> Where do you get that rule from?

Don't know whether there's a rule, but I agree with Adrian here. It's
pretty likely - or at least cannot be ruled out - that new upstream
releases get packaged for another Debian suite/release as well.

> There's lots of bikeshedding going on here and while the various
> commenters have some reason justifying their choice, there's no
> perfect choice. We have multiple possibilities that all respect
> the simple rules that the archive requires...
> That's why I consider that anytime that we will not have any conflict
> we should just use "<upstream>-1"

What's the benefit of using <upstream>-1 apart from some saved bytes? Or
to put it the other way round: what't the drawback of <upstream>-1~deb7u1?

> and if we fear that the same upstream
> version will be used in multiple releases (for example if wheezy/jessie
> have the same upstream version), then we add the required "simili-backport
> suffix" making it "<upstream>-1~deb7u1".
> But it's also fine if we want to use -1~deb7u1 directly just to show that
> this is an oldstable update.

That's what I would suggest. Also, it makes obvious that the upload went
through stable-security, which I consider as something good.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: