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

Re: RFS: burn 0.4.3-2.2 (Lenny security bug fixes)

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:33:22 am Ben Finney wrote:
> Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> I believe packages with updates to stable debian releases are
> > >> versioned <version>-<revision>+lenny1 or something like that.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, I know this is not a hard requirement, but it is to easily
> > >> detect stable updates.
> > >
> > > Okay. Given that the release team has approved a specific set of
> > > changes that includes the package release version string, would I
> > > need to seek approval again when changing that string?
> >
> > I'm not sure, but I would think not. After all, the change is
> > irrelevant to the software functionality.
> Well, I don't know exactly what needs to be done here.
> The examination of this updated release for stable was discussed on
> ‘debian-release’ and this issue didn't arise at all; I can only assume
> the chosen version string was not worth commenting on in that
> discussion.
> I don't want to change the version string based on a guess. I can't find
> any mention of the convention you're describing in the Developer's
> Reference or the Policy; what should I read to know what you're
> referring to?
It really doesn't matter. The only thing is you shouldn't have a version 
number that is higher than the one in the next release.
Most of the people in the sec team prefer a version number that has the 
codename in the version, mainly to make it plain that this is a special update 
for this release. This was also adopted by the release team in the past, but 
as said it is not a requirement.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: