Hello Seth,
Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 11:14:45 PM, you wrote:
SRA> * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000919 11:30]:
>> > At the risk of being ostracized for being a smartass, the point of the
>> > field isn't for humans; it is for software to make automatic updating of
>> > systems easier and les
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:15:45PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > The idea we struck on was for each package to have a 'urgency serial
> > number' which exists on the ring [0...N]. The difference in the priority
> > serial numbers of any two packages indicates how urge
Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe this is compelling reason to keep the current Priority field
> around; humans read one, machines read the other. (And Humans that care
Why should the serial field be in control? Wouldn't changelog be a better
place for it?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2
> Perhaps it just needs a better name? Security-History ? Exploits-Fixed ?
> I donno.
`Serial' is better because it's an opaque number. The other names you
propose imply false meanings.
BTW, this idea is great! I had propoed (several times) a
"Last-critical-version:" header to achieve the same e
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 02:22:35PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Jason> I'd suggest the field look like:
> > Jason> Urgency: high (< 1.2-3), medium (< 1.2-4), low (< 1.2-6)
> The only drawback from this approach is that it involves significantly
> mor
On 19 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Jason> Mark's problem *could* be addressed by making the urgencies
> Jason> sets.. First match = priority. By Mark's example you'd list
> Jason> low (< 1.2), high (< 1.4)
>
> Jason> I'd suggest the field look like:
>
> Jason> Urgency: high (< 1.2-
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000919 11:30]:
> > At the risk of being ostracized for being a smartass, the point of the
> > field isn't for humans; it is for software to make automatic updating of
> > systems easier and less prone to surprises.
>
> Yes, that's exactly my point. You're already s
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Another possibility (presuming you have a small number of possible
>> urgencies),
>> is to have a header more like:
>>
>> Most-Recent-Urgency:
>> high 1.2-3
>> medium 1.2-4
>> lo
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Mark's problem *could* be addressed by making the urgencies sets.. First
> match = priority. By Mark's example you'd list low (< 1.2), high (< 1.4)
>
> I'd suggest the field look like:
>
> Urgency: high (< 1.2-3), medium (< 1.2-4), low (< 1.2-6)
Hm, I guess that'd work.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Another possibility (presuming you have a small number of possible urgencies),
> is to have a header more like:
>
> Most-Recent-Urgency:
> high 1.2-3
> medium 1.2-4
> low 1.2-6
Off hand this seems quite
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:15:45PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The idea we struck on was for each package to have a 'urgency serial
> number' which exists on the ring [0...N]. The difference in the priority
> serial numbers of any two packages indicates how urgent the upgrade is.
Another poss
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:15:45PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Ver=1.0 Urgency=0
> Ver=1.1 Urgency=100
> Ver=1.2 Urgency=200
> Ver=1.3 Urgency=300
> Ver=1.4 Urgency=300
>
> A user not at 1.3,1.4 will be able to detect that there is a strong reason
> to upgrade from [1.0,1.1,1.2] but
Seth R Arnold wrote:
> > If a user sees one package with Urgency-Serial = 1109 and another with
> > Urgency-Serial = 10, which will they think is more ugent? It won't
> > matter that the first is sendmail and had a bunch of security holes 5 to
> > 10 years ago, while the second is a new urgent uplo
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 11:09:54PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > > happened in the versions you can no longer see [1.1 to 1.3 in this
> > > example]. That reduces the usability of the feature to about the level
> > > of a cheap hack..
>
> > I know
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000918 22:18]:
> If a user sees one package with Urgency-Serial = 1109 and another with
> Urgency-Serial = 10, which will they think is more ugent? It won't
> matter that the first is sendmail and had a bunch of security holes 5 to
> 10 years ago, while the second i
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > as it is to a tool -> higher = important bug fixes.
>
> higher = important bug fixes at some unspecified point in the past.
>
> If a user sees one package with Urgency-Serial = 1109 and another with
> Urgency-Serial = 10, which will they think is more u
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 at 22:18, Joey Hess wrote about "Re: A thought on urgency":
> If a user sees one package with Urgency-Serial = 1109 and another with
> Urgency-Serial = 10, which will they think is more ugent? It won't
> matter that the first is sendmail and had a bunc
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > We already get enough oops-LAST-version-was-HIGH-priority-not-this-one
> > uploads with it in the changelog. Putting it in the control file will
> > just make them more common.
>
> Actually it should make it less common because you have to explicitly go
> and increment t
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > happened in the versions you can no longer see [1.1 to 1.3 in this
> > example]. That reduces the usability of the feature to about the level
> > of a cheap hack..
> I know. I hope someone comes up with a way to make it work. The control
> file has alwa
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Actually, I would prefer not to use numbers in the actual Packages file. We
> > should use a textual representation; implementations can convert to
> > numbers as needed. Contrast with the Priority field. Of course this
> > messe
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Actually, I would prefer not to use numbers in the actual Packages file. We
> should use a textual representation; implementations can convert to
> numbers as needed. Contrast with the Priority field. Of course this
> messes with your idea of continually in
* Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000918 21:16]:
> Now that APT has a pinning mechanism it would be very nice if you could
> automatically install higher urgency upgrades and leave low priority stuff
> behind.
[snip snip snip]
> What do you all think?
Well Jason, I for one am constantly am
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The idea we struck on was for each package to have a 'urgency serial
> number' which exists on the ring [0...N]. The difference in the priority
> serial numbers of any two packages indicates how urgent the upgrade is.
Actually, I would prefer not to use numbers in the act
Here is a (rephrased) thought Joey Hess brought up:
Now that APT has a pinning mechanism it would be very nice if you could
automatically install higher urgency upgrades and leave low priority stuff
behind.
Right now we have an urgency feild in the changelog but that is neither
adaquate informa
24 matches
Mail list logo
