Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

[Steffen Joeris <steffen.joeris@skolelinux.de>]

Hi

> >> You can base security uploads on NMUs, so I think you could get
> >>   +deb50.1
> >>   +deb50.1+nmu1
> >>   +deb50.2
> >>   +deb50.2+nmu1
> >
> > Hum I understand +nmu1+deb50.1 for a security upload of a package whose
> > last upload was an NMU, but I don't see in what occasions you would NMU a
> > package in stable/testing (package in unstable don't have security
> > uploads). And even if you did, I don't see why you keep the +deb50.1
> > instead of simply replacing it with +nmu1.
>
>         Yes, it was late when I wrote that. We cancertainly come up with
>  a better progression example, if the rest of the proposal sounds good.
I haven't followed all the discussion around this, so please excuse my 
ignorance, but could someone try and explain to me in simple terms what we are 
trying to fix with all this policy stuff around versioning?
I don't see why we have to replace our usual convention of:
- Add a ".X" for normal NMUs (including security NMUs to 
unstable/experimental)
- Add "+$codenameX " to uploads for oldstable/stable/testing (for security and 
non-security, regardless of whether NMU or MU)

The only problem I could think of is when we start having a codename that 
starts with "a", since the binNMU convention is to add "+bX".
But I'd worry about that problem, when it arises (is there a toy story 
character starting with a? :) ).

Cheers
Steffen