On 2008-03-16, Adam D. Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 03:47 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> The current binNMU numbering scheme was selected explicitly to allow >> security uploads to sort later by numbering as >> <last_version>+<release><serial>; e.g., 1.2-5.1+etch1. > > That makes sense, although doesn't seem to match current practice. Was > any consideration given as to where NMUs of native packages should sort? > (I realise that they're the only case that doesn't automagically dtrt > with respect to the numbering scheme).
We'll adapt our practise to use +etchX for security updates. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]