On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:59:45PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Martin Schulze: > > > For the stable distribution (sarge) these problems have been fixed in > > version 0.35-2sarge1. > > I would have expected a version like 0.35-1sarge1. The version you > have chosen violated an implicit constraint fulfilled by most (all?) > security updates: the version of a package update in stable is less > than any version uploaded to unstable since stable was branched. > > AFAICS, this rule is quite reasonable, so I assume that this antiword > version is just a minor glitch. Correct?
It's weird that antiword's security update was seeminly[1] based on the testing version, rather than the stable version: antiword | 0.35-1 | stable | source antiword | 0.35-2 | testing | source But anyway, there is a version propagation mechanism in place to make sure that the constraint that stable <= testing <= unstable is preserved. This mechanism also took effect this time: antiword | 0.35-2sarge1 | proposed-updates | source antiword | 0.35-2sarge1 | testing-proposed-updates | source antiword | 0.35-2sarge1 | unstable | source So after the version in testing-p-u is accepted by an RM, this condition will hold again. This mechanism is required because if testing == stable, this should not prevent security updates from happening at all. A temporary inconsistency like this is preferred over not having security updates end up in proposed-updates at all due to version constraints. In this case though, stable != testing, so indeed there could have been chosen a version between the current stable and testing versions, so that this propagation mechanism wouldn't have needed to jump in. --Jeroen [1] Looking exclusively at the version numbering -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
