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. I'm not yet sure what a good number would be there, but it seems the best place to tackle this problem. Thijs
pgpQgb5jnGxmz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
