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

Re: Refreshing mysql-connector-java

Hi Salvatore,

On 04/06/2020 20:41, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:47:56PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:22:50AM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
>>> Hi Security Team,
>>> What is your view on updating mysql-connector-java 5.1.42->5.1.49 for
>>> Stretch?
>> We can update to 5.1.49, yes. We've had to update it to new 5.1.x
>> releases in the past and I don't remember any issues. The fact
>> that there's zero information totally sucks, but there's nothing
>> we can do either (apart from removing it as we did a year ago).
>> Looking at the debdiff from https://www.beuc.net/tmp/debian-lts/mysql-connector-java/
>> the remaining change would be to change the version number to
>> 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 and the targets distro to stretch-security.
> I'm a bit late to the party, but just want to give my 2 cents on the
> versioning scheme. Agreed here to not use the really-something
> variant. usually I think this is usefull when you have rebased
> soemthing to a *higher* version, but need to rollback. Example:
> graphicsmagick/1.4+really1.3.35+hg16296-1
> or
> lxc/1:3.1.0+really3.0.4-3
> (other examples exists)

OK. I had used +really for the ELTS package to test what I should do in
the event that there would be objections or major delays in bumping to
5.1.49 in other suites, like e.g.:
7.0.56-3+really7.0.100-1+deb8u1 < 7.0.75-1

> So I think the proper version would be either what Moritz said,
> 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 or 5.1.49-*0*+deb9u1.
> For practical reasons there is no difference, both work. usually it
> just more points out what the upload does. 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 would give
> more a hint like "this update is rebuild of 5.1.49-1 for stretch,
> possibly minus/plus some additional changes". 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 (please
> not the 0, not -1+deb9u1) means more something like "we imported
> upstream 5.1.49 on top of the current packaging plus/minus probably
> some additional changes".
> Personally I would go with 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 due to the meaning, there
> are other source packages which follow this schema. Other do with the
> ~debXuY variant. For both in any case we have 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 <=
> 5.1.49-1 and 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 <= 5.1.49-1.
> And as usual there are as well excpetions.
> Anyway, I would suggest to not use the +really syntax.

Certainly. I recently prepared a package with 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 (and I'm
currently doing further testing) but I'll switch to 5.1.49-0+deb9u1
since there is no 5.1.49-1.


Reply to: