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. Cheers, jonas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature