Re: RFS: burn 0.4.3-2.2 (Lenny security bug fixes)
Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
> 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?
22.214.171.124. Preparing packages to address security issues
Be sure to verify the following items:
* Make sure the version number is proper. It must be greater than
the current package, but less than package versions in later
distributions. If in doubt, test it with dpkg --compare-versions.
Be careful not to re-use a version number that you have already
used for a previous upload, or one that conflicts with a binNMU.
The convention is to append +codename1, e.g. 1:2.4.3-4+etch1, of
course increasing 1 for any subsequent uploads.
\ “People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian |
`\ Separatist Movement!” —wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ |