Re: Add Debian revision number standards to policy?
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> What is your point?
>
> In my example the binNMU done _BEFORE_ the security release sorts
> _AFTER_ the security release. So updates will not get the fix.
I think we saw different use cases, I interpreted your example as:
1/ upload happens
2/ security upload happens
3/ bin NMU of 1/ happens
and I saw no point of bin NMUing 1/ instead of 2/...
but you probably meant:
1/ upload happens
2/ bin NMU of 1/ happens
3/ security upload of 1/ happens and has a lower version number than 2/
which is of course a problem because people with 2/ won't get the
security update. This I did not understand in your first message, and
it's now clear to me that we were in need of a new scheme for bin NMUs
so that they get a lower priority than other source branches.
I suppose this was particularly a risk for people maintaining packages
as bin NMUs of Debian packages.
> PS: 1.2-3.0.1 binNMU gets rejected by DAK now, only 1.2-3+b1 is
> accepted.
As I understand it, all problems that appeared in this discussion are
solved with the new scheme.
Bye,
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
"What do we want? BRAINS! When do we want it? BRAINS!"
Reply to: