[nutshell version for those who can't be bothered to read the full mail :-) - what version number should a security upload of a native package have]
Hi, devscripts 2.10.19 (soon to be uploaded) will modify the behaviour of "debchange --nmu" to version an NMU of a native package as X+nmu1 rather than the current X-0.1. 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. Currently, debchange will produce a version number of X-0.1 in such cases which suffers from the problem described above. It has been suggested that either one of +s1 / +sec1 / +security1 or <release>1 should be used to avoid the issue. The main difficulty with the latter from the point-of-view of adding support to debchange is that there's no easy way of mapping a changelog distribution (e.g. "stable") to a release name, particularly as both stable and oldstable updates may have "stable" as the last distribution to which the package was uploaded. After some discussion amongst the team on IRC we decided we'd be happiest following either a request from the security team or a consensus view (or as close to a consensus as -devel ever gets :-). Cheers, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
