On 20/08/08 at 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a > > maintainer > > completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version without > > acknowledging the previous NMU, thereby reintroducing the problem the NMU > > addressed. This happened to active maintainers. > > At least the BTS automatically reopens the bugs so the problem doesn't > stay unnotified and untracked.
It doesn't really reopen the bug. But the BTS version-tracking allows to find out that the bug is not fixed in the new maintainer upload. > > > If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need > > > to "fork" the version number tree. This is the case for security > > > uploads, for example. For this, a version of the form +debXYuZ > > > should be used, where X is the current stable major release > > > number, and Y is the current minor release number for a stable > > > upload, or one higher than that for a testing upload. Z is a > > > counter starting at 1. For example, while Etch (Debian 4.0) is > > > stable, a security NMU to stable for a package at version 1.5-3 > > > would have version 1.5-3+deb40u1, while a security NMU to Lenny > > > would get version 1.5-3+deb41u1. This is the case even when it > > > is already known that the next release will be a new major > > > version ; for instance, Lenny will be released as Debian 5.0. > > > > I am not very happy with this paragraph. The proposed scheme is in my > > opinion > > hard to read, and it gets especially confusing when 40 means 4.1 and 41 > > means > > 5.0. > > > > We already have a scheme in the security team that prevents this numbering > > confusion, and that is to use release codenames. It makes it clear at a > > glance whether a package is intended for stable or testing, and the > > codenames > > do not change. > > > > The current convention is to add +etch1 or +lenny1 respectively. This > > scheme > > works well. > > It works well except when the same package version is in two consecutive > release. > > 1.0-1+sarge1 > 1.0-1+etch1 when we really want the opposite. That's why > this scheme was invented. I agree that it's not very nice though but i > couldn't find anything "cleaner". Actually, for lenny, we could just have used +deb41 until the release team announced that Lenny would be 5.0, and switch to +deb50 at this point. If the release team doesn't change its mind, it's fine. Would that work for everybody? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
