Re: [PROPOSAL] don't upload to "stable unstable" (was Re: BAHH. Retraction.)
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 03:46:48PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
So the rule would pretty much be that the major debian version number of a
package in stable should never be incremented, and should be reset to zero
if new upstream source is introduced into the stable branch. And unstable
versions should always increment only the major debian version number?
Sounds good, but you seem to be saying that NMUs typicly use minor deb
version number, so you still may end up with versions intended for
different branches having identical version numbers, if that is a problem.
Britton
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 01:48:24PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, a better approach is just to never upload to
> > more than one distribution and have newer versions in stable or frozen
> > (if we have another frozen) automatically propogate outwards...
> >
>
> IMO, this is the best solution. As far as I know, we wont have a
> "frozen" anymore now that we have testing. Things will always go to
> unstable, and then propogate to testing. We should never have a need for
> uploading to more than one dist now. Usually uploads for stable are for
> bug fixing (security, etc.) and not meant for newer versions.
>
> I think we need to move this to -policy.
>
> PROPOSAL:
>
> With the integration of the "testing" distribution, we will not (in my
> understanding) ever upload to frozen. Our uploads will generally go to
> unstable, and propogate to "testing" based on some rules (bugs, time,
> etc..).
>
> Currently, it is still possible to build a package and upload it to
> "stable unstable". A lot of discussion is bringing to light just how bad
> this is. It's something porters have had to deal with for quite some
> time. What I am proposing is that uploads to stable can never have a
> newer version than the same package in unstable. Basically, do not allow
> uploads to go to "stable" and "unstable" using the same binaries. So if
> we have this setup:
>
> stable: foo_1.1-1
> unstable: foo_1.1-2
>
> If a new version is required for "stable" (because of a agrave bug,
> secrity fix or what have you), then it should get an NMU type version
> increase, such as "foo_1.1-1.1". If The new upload requires a new
> upstream version, then the stable version should get "1.2-0.1", while
> the unstable version is simultaneously (or previously) updated to
> "1.2-1".
>
> I'm interested in hearing corner cases, so that they can also be covered
> in a sort of multi-upload-howto. IMO, stable updates are not frequent
> enough that this would be really hard.
>
> Ben
>
> --
> -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
> / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
> ` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
> `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
>
>
> --
> Please respect the privacy of this mailing list.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-private-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: