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, [1]), 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.


Reply via email to