Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Michael Gilbert wrote: >> I wonder if the part about +nmuN as an >> optional versioning for non-native packages could be re-added? > > It's still not needed or a noticeable existing practice. I think people aren

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: >> If I had to propose something, I'd propose +d60 or +dist60 for the >> stable/security updates, but there are probably better and more memorable >> terms than "dist". > > It sounds like +debXuY is now the plan for stab

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > In the long run, what we want is something that satisfies: > > package < binNMU < stable/security update < NMU < maintainer upload > > with all stable/security updates sorting in Debian release order. > > The current convention of .1 satisf

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Guillem Jover writes: > With those fixes, seconded. Thanks, I've applied the typo fixes to my local version. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Roger Leigh writes: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 05:09:34PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Interesting. +d60 for "Debian 6.0". :) >> What happens when there are more than 10 updates for a single Debian >> version? Maybe that's not worth worrying about --- such a package is >> either horribly bu

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> A scheme that would always satisfy this would be to use + >> for stable/security updates where is the Debian version being >> targeted similar to how that's done for backports (so 50 for lenny or 60 >> for squeeze), and is some letter between b a

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 05:09:34PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > A scheme that would always satisfy this would be to use + > > for stable/security updates where is the Debian version being > > targeted similar to how that's done for backports (so 50 for lenny or 60 > >

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Russ Allbery wrote: > A scheme that would always satisfy this would be to use + > for stable/security updates where is the Debian version being > targeted similar to how that's done for backports (so 50 for lenny or 60 > for squeeze), and is some letter between b and n. (Alternately, > we could

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 10:07:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Following the further discussion of sorting issues and Jonathan's point > about ambiguity about using +nmu in the upstream_version of a native > package, I updated this some more (mostly by adding back in the language > that Charles had or

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Russ Allbery wrote: > I updated this some more (mostly by adding back in the language > that Charles had originally to be clearer; he understood the issue better > than I did!). Looks good to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "un

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Following the further discussion of sorting issues and Jonathan's point about ambiguity about using +nmu in the upstream_version of a native package, I updated this some more (mostly by adding back in the language that Charles had originally to be clearer; he understood the issue better than I did!

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Is there any existing practice of using +nmu at the end of the > debian_version (sp) for NMUs of non-native packages? There are three packages in the archive that use this convention for an NMU of a non-native package: lush, sec, and libcss-perl. I am, however, still l

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Is there any existing practice of using +nmu at the end of the > debian_version (sp) for NMUs of non-native packages? What is the > advantage of doing so over using the usual .1 convention Consistency. Why have two different version numbering conventions for NMUs? Th

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Russ Allbery wrote: > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -3211,6 +3211,40 @@ Package: libc6 [...] > + upstream_version or debian_verison > + numbers ending in +nmu followed by a number > + indicate an NMU. Either this convention or the convention > +

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Le Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > * Define NMU and binary NMU. As strange as it may sound, those terms > aren't otherwise used in Policy. (We could probably eventually stand to > move them to another definition section, but this should do for now.) > > * A

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Charles Plessy writes: > here is a patch to section 5.6.12 (Version), that inserts an explanation > of the convention to indicate native packages (no hyphens), NMUs (+nmun > and .n), and binary NMUs (+bn), after the description of the three > components of the version numbers (epoch, upstream and

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:40:07PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > > > > I believe it should also document the N.N standard for > > > NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to > > > +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so. > > I suppose this isn't a compe

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: >> I believe it should also document the N.N standard for >> NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to >> +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so. I suppose this isn't a compelling argument, but it's just

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

Le Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:07:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > I believe there is widespread agreement in this bug that Policy should > document the +bN standard for binNMUs and the +nmuN standard for NMUs of > native packages. I believe it should also document the N.N standard for > NMUs of n

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

I believe there is widespread agreement in this bug that Policy should document the +bN standard for binNMUs and the +nmuN standard for NMUs of native packages. I believe it should also document the N.N standard for NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to +nmu an