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:
> > 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 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 bunch of security holes 5 to
>
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
* 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, 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
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 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
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 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
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.
unsubscribe
--
Big Gaute (not to be confused with LG)
UH-OH!! I think KEN is OVER-DUE on his R.V. PAYMENTS and HE'S
having a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN too!! Ha ha.
>>"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
* 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
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-
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
> 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
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
Hi folks,
I have put an initial draft of the new package related policy
manual on http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/new-packaging.txt. I
have tried to trim tis down to include only stuff I think ought to be
in policy, using the following informal criteria:
---
19 matches
Mail list logo
