On 02/12/16 06:40, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Emilio, Jonas, Antoine, > > Thanks for all feedback. > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:44:22PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 01/12/16 16:25, Jonas Meurer wrote: >>> Hi Security and LTS folks, >>> >>> Am 01.12.2016 um 15:54 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso: >>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:05:20PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >>>>> +nss (2:3.26.2-1+debu7u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=high >>>>> + >>>>> + * Non-maintainer upload by the LTS Security Team. >>>>> + * New upstream release to fix CVE-2016-9074 >>>> >>>> Depending on what is done this should be either 2:3.26.2-0+debu7u1 or >>>> 2:3.26.2-1~debu7u1, but 2:3.26.2-1+debu7u1 is higher than 2:3.26.2-1. >>>> >>>> The former if you import new orig source on top of the previous >>>> packaging to indicate the new import and have a version which is >>>> before any possible such ones uploaded to unstable (which is even true >>>> in this case because 2:3.26.2-1 is currently in unstable). The later >>>> is often prefered if the package is mostly are build of :3.26.2-1 for >>>> Wheezy. (The later proposed version works obviously as well in the >>>> case of just a new upstream import, but Release team has often as well >>>> done that distinction for the ~debXuY suffix). >>> >>> With this topic being discussed again and again recently, I suggest that >>> we should agree on a defined standard regarding the versioning of new >>> upstream releases uploaded to (old)?stable(-security)? and document it >>> somewhere. What do you think? >>> >>> I don't have particular strong feelings on the exact versioning but I >>> think that the following should be considered: >>> >>> *) New upstream releases in (old)?stable should use lover version >>> numbers than their equivalent uploaded to unstable. This because >>> packages uploaded to unstable are built using more recent versions >>> of the build toolchain and libraries. >> >> Moreover, New upstream releases should use lower versions than the next >> suite. >> That means oldstable < stable < testing < sid. Not just oldstable < sid and >> stable < sid, as you worded it. >> >> That's why 2:3.26.2-1+debu7u1 would be bad even if unstable had 2:3.26.3-1 by >> now, if stable had 2:3.26.2-1~debu8u1. >> >> When doing an update in oldstable, we need to see if it has happened or is >> happening in stable to avoid having a higher version in oldstable. >> >>> *) The versioning should make it obvious whether the new release is >>> based on a similar upload to unstable or whether it's packaged >>> solely for (old)?stable. >>> >>> Consequently, the following (as already done for most uploads of new >>> releases to (old)?stable) is my suggestion: >>> >>> *) Uploads of new upstream releases to (old)?stable that were packaged >>> for unstable before should use the '~debXu1' suffix to the version >>> number from unstable as they're basically backports of the package >>> from unstable. >>> *) Uploads of new upstream releases that were not packaged for unstable >>> yet or will never be, should use the '1.2.3-0+debXu1' format (given >>> that '1.2.3' is the upstream version. >> >> That's the current practice, yes. As Salvatore pointed out, that's also what >> the >> SRMs require for (old)stable uploads. >> >>> If we can agree on this, what would be the proper place to document it >>> for the future? Ideally, this should be mandatory for any uploads of new >>> upstream releases to the (old)?stable suites, be it to >>> (old)?stable-security, to stable-proposed-updates or to stable-updates. >> >> Probably the developers-reference, which already mentions the +debXuY syntax >> in >> various places (including the security updates section, 126.96.36.199 ), but >> doesn't mention ~debXuY for the case of backports. > > Right it is spread around on various sections both for stable updates > and as well for security updates. Would it make sense to maybe add a > new section for handling versioning for (old)?stable(-securit)? > udpates, and then reference from both the security bug handling and > the stable-updates handling to it?
Yes, I think that would make sense. > I do not have a wording right now for dev-ref, but I can look if I can > come up with something during the weekend (keep in mind though that it > will in any case need review, I'm not a native english speaker). Great! I'm not a native speaker either, but I'll happy to look at it. Maybe cc debian-release@ with the patch so the SRMs can look at it as well. Cheers, Emilio