Re: version number when packaging a new upstream release
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 09:11:15AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:16:37PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Thu, 06 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > > > Do you have any rationale why you think -1~deb7u1 would be better
> > > > than -0+deb7u1?
> > >
> > > My preference goes for the former because it matches the logic of
> > > backported packages and thus does not introduce a new concept while
> > > -0+deb7u1 is not something we use in another context.
> >
> > -0+deb7u1 is a concept already used in DSAs for exactly this purpose.
>
> It's not always the case. Check out all the OpenJDK DSA, just like
> MySQL we import newer upstream releases:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2016/msg00028.html
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openjdk-7
>
> So while it has been used it's not the only one in use in the context
> of the security team.
>...
It is a different version numbering than the MySQL 5.5 case because it
is a different situation.
This OpenJDK DSA is not a packaging of a new version for the DSA only
like MySQL 5.5, it is a backport (in this case from experimental):
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/o/openjdk-7/changelog-7u111-2.6.7-1~deb7u1
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: