On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:48:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 19.06.19 22:03, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > > > On 18-06-2019 22:14, tony mancill wrote: > >> Things are looking good so far with 11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7 in unstable, > >> and so I would like to prepare the t-p-u upload. At the moment, the > >> version I have is 11.0.3+7-5, since that would have been the "next" > >> 11.0.3+7 Debian revision for unstable. The 11.0.3+7 orig.tar.xz already > >> in the archive is the same one used for the "really" to unstable and > >> this build, and this versioning makes it clear to users what they are > >> getting. The resulting changelog would be: > >> > >>> diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7/debian/changelog openjdk-11-11.0.3+7/debian/changelog > >>> --- openjdk-11-11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7/debian/changelog 2019-06-14 12:28:25.000000000 -0700 > >>> +++ openjdk-11-11.0.3+7/debian/changelog 2019-06-16 11:24:19.000000000 -0700 > >>> @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ > >>> +openjdk-11 (11.0.3+7-5) buster; urgency=medium > >>> + > >>> + * Team upload. > >>> + * Upload 11.0.4+4+realy11.0.3+7-2 to buster t-p-u. > >>> + > >>> + -- tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:24:19 -0700 > >> > >> Is this acceptable to the Release Team? If not, (and I know there have > >> been some differing opinions), how shall we version the t-p-u package? > > > > I think the most logical version would be 11.0.3+7-4+deb10u1, as this is > > a targeted upload to buster. > > let's use a version which also can be nicely used for the backports upload. > > > I don't have a strong opinion on it. I > > still don't like it we go via tpu but I understand the ranting argument. > > this will be very short-lived until the final 11.0.4 release to be uploaded into > security. I interpret this exchange to mean that 11.0.3+7-5 is still the version preferred by the OpenJDK Team and so have uploaded that, built against buster and with distribution set the buster. Let me know if I misinterpreted and should upload with a different version, and thank you for the discussion and patience with this one. Cheers, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature