On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:36:20AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Sunday 16 March 2008 00:52, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > We're aware that the Developers Reference specifies that the latter > > format should be used, but it is problematic as -0.1 sorts before +b1 > > and, as such, the NMU will not supersede any previous binNMUs of the > > same package version.
> > Whilst looking at this change, the question arose of what format > > security uploads of native packages should use, both in general and > > specifically when debchange's --security option is used. > There may not be a good solution since MU's, NMU's and security uploads can > currently be interleaved in any particular order, so it seems hard to make a > scheme that would work reliably. > Occasionally there are problems with an upload being lower than a binNMU. > binNMU's are problematic in this regard as they are often done without > maintainer notification, and if you fetch the source package there's also no > trace of them, both making it very easy to overlook. That would prompt me > that reducing these problems may be sought in finding a better binNMU > numbering scheme, one that sorts only just above the last sourceful upload > but is very likely to be smaller than any time of new sourceful upload (mu, > nmu or security) after it. The current binNMU numbering scheme was selected explicitly to allow security uploads to sort later by numbering as <last_version>+<release><serial>; e.g., 1.2-5.1+etch1. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
