Hi Salvatore, On 04/06/2020 20:41, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:47:56PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: >> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:22:50AM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote: >>> Hi Security Team, >>> >>> What is your view on updating mysql-connector-java 5.1.42->5.1.49 for >>> Stretch? >> >> We can update to 5.1.49, yes. We've had to update it to new 5.1.x >> releases in the past and I don't remember any issues. The fact >> that there's zero information totally sucks, but there's nothing >> we can do either (apart from removing it as we did a year ago). >> >> Looking at the debdiff from >> https://www.beuc.net/tmp/debian-lts/mysql-connector-java/ >> the remaining change would be to change the version number to >> 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 and the targets distro to stretch-security. > > I'm a bit late to the party, but just want to give my 2 cents on the > versioning scheme. Agreed here to not use the really-something > variant. usually I think this is usefull when you have rebased > soemthing to a *higher* version, but need to rollback. Example: > > graphicsmagick/1.4+really1.3.35+hg16296-1 > > or > > lxc/1:3.1.0+really3.0.4-3 > > (other examples exists)
OK. I had used +really for the ELTS package to test what I should do in the event that there would be objections or major delays in bumping to 5.1.49 in other suites, like e.g.: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/tomcat7 7.0.56-3+really7.0.100-1+deb8u1 < 7.0.75-1 > So I think the proper version would be either what Moritz said, > 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 or 5.1.49-*0*+deb9u1. > > For practical reasons there is no difference, both work. usually it > just more points out what the upload does. 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 would give > more a hint like "this update is rebuild of 5.1.49-1 for stretch, > possibly minus/plus some additional changes". 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 (please > not the 0, not -1+deb9u1) means more something like "we imported > upstream 5.1.49 on top of the current packaging plus/minus probably > some additional changes". > > Personally I would go with 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 due to the meaning, there > are other source packages which follow this schema. Other do with the > ~debXuY variant. For both in any case we have 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 <= > 5.1.49-1 and 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 <= 5.1.49-1. > > And as usual there are as well excpetions. > > Anyway, I would suggest to not use the +really syntax. Certainly. I recently prepared a package with 5.1.49-1~deb9u1 (and I'm currently doing further testing) but I'll switch to 5.1.49-0+deb9u1 since there is no 5.1.49-1. Cheers! Sylvain
