On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 09:00:48 +0100 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam- barratt.org.uk> wrote: > This has nothing specifically to do with updates to stable, and > changing the versioning used for source updates to stable will not > change it. If stable released with version 1.0-1 of package foo, then > it is entirely feasible that a binNMU will be required at some point, > and that will be versioned as 1.0-1+b1.
Please make up your mind. If you are not interested in knowing the problem with 1-1+b1foo1 and 1-1+b1foo1+b1, then stop with the "ugliness" stuff. > It also conflicts with your original claims that you were trying to > avoid having a stable update - which would be a source change When did I say such a thing? > There are two choices for the derivative when making source changes. There are two patterns: 1. binNMU 2. stable update Thus, there are three choices: 1. Before binNMU (case 1.0-1deriv1). 2. After stable update (case 1.0-1+deriv1). 3. Between binNMU and stable update. This is what I am asking for. Would you agree to preserve this third choice if it is currently feasible?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
