Re: Refreshing mysql-connector-java
Hi Security Team,
On 05/06/2020 09:23, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> 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
>>> 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:
>> (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.
I finished testing and I prepared the upload accordingly:
Version scheme is changed, suite is stretch-security, and I made a minor
change to debian/watch to track 5.x (not 8.x).
Do you approve for upload?