Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
> Is there any existing practice of using +nmu at the end of the
> debian_version (sp) for NMUs of non-native packages?
There are three packages in the archive that use this convention for an
NMU of a non-native package: lush, sec, and libcss-perl.
I am, however, still leaning towards leaving that out of the documentation
since at the moment the other convention is much more widespread and it
does pose some additional sorting issues.
In the long run, what we want is something that satisfies:
package < binNMU < stable/security update < NMU < maintainer upload
with all stable/security updates sorting in Debian release order.
The current convention of .1 satisfies this requirement except for native
packages where it can't be used, and except for the fact that our
stable/security updates don't have a good sorting pattern because of the
use of codenames (which is true of any possible scheme right now).
The +nmu convention doesn't satisfy this because of conflicts with the
stable/security updates.
A scheme that would always satisfy this would be to use +<letter><version>
for stable/security updates where <version> is the Debian version being
targeted similar to how that's done for backports (so 50 for lenny or 60
for squeeze), and <letter> is some letter between b and n. (Alternately,
we could use a different convention for NMUs than +nmu, but that's so
self-explanatory that it would be nice to stick with it.)
If I had to propose something, I'd propose +d60 or +dist60 for the
stable/security updates, but there are probably better and more memorable
terms than "dist".
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
