On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:23:17PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes: > > I was surprised to discover that the standard rules for Debian > > revision numbers > > (maintainer revisions contain no dots; > > source NMUs contain one dots; > > binary NMUs contain two) > > are not in Policy, but only in the Developer's Reference. > > This seems like a perfect example of a place where policy should follow > > practice; it would be supremely annoying and worthy of a serious bug > > if these revisioning rules are not followed. It's already checked in > > NM! > > Should a policy patch be created? > Since common practice for NMU, binNMU and security versions are > flawed, as in they don't sort right with dpkg --compare-versions, I > would rather see a new scheme be made policy. > Currently versions sort the following way: > 1.2-3 > 1.2-3sarge1 > 1.2-3.0.1 > 1.2-3.1 > As you can see the binNMU sorts after the security release while it > should be before it. > I suggest one of two alternative schems for binNMUs: A little late, I think; this was discussed something like a year ago on debian-devel, and the conclusion was to use +b<num> for binNMUs. And this has been implemented in dak, sbuild, and wanna-build as of last week. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature