Re: A thought on urgency
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:15:45PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > The idea we struck on was for each package to have a 'urgency serial
> > number' which exists on the ring [0...N]. The difference in the priority
> > serial numbers of any two packages indicates how urgent the upgrade is.
>
> Another possibility (presuming you have a small number of possible urgencies),
> is to have a header more like:
>
> Most-Recent-Urgency:
> high 1.2-3
> medium 1.2-4
> low 1.2-6
Or alternatively we could do something sort of like
(though, i don't like my choice of nomenclature):
Version: 1.6-1
Recommended-versions: 1.2-3, 1.4-1
Which would mean for apt that if the version was anywhere below 1.2-3 that it
should upgrade at least to one of the listed values if available. The versions
listed should be the high urgency uploads that haven't been later discovered
to have other security holes.
This would allow the possibility that an apt with access to multiple
distributions, stable, unstable, as well as perhaps a personal incoming
directory, to know when to offer to suggest a user upgrade from the stable
version to the unstable.
--
greg
Reply to: