On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<< > > 1.0.1-2) be more correct? That way the package is still binNMU safe and > > also safe from breaking if incompatibilities are introduced in the next > > source upload? > > > > Regards, > > > > -Roberto > > (>= version) and (<< next-version). > > The problem is knowing next-version. 1.0.1-2 is not the next > version. For example a NMU of 1.0.1-1.1 is less. Also 1.0.1-1lenny1 > (security update for lenny) is less than 1.0.1-2. There could also be > an 1.0.1-2~rc1, again less than 1.0.1-2. > Yes, but in reality what is the likelihood that either a security update or NMU would introduce an incompatible change? I would say that such a possibility is extremely low.
> And now for something really ugly: > > % dpkg --compare-versions "1.0.1-1lenny1" "<<" "1.0.1-1+b1" && echo yes > yes > > So a security upload of the package has a smaller version than a > binNMU upload. At that point you are pretty much screwed. > Perhaps the policy should change so that security uploads are done with x.y.z-(w++)~lenny1? That is, the Debian version number gets incremented. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
