Ludovico Cavedon wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Ludovico Cavedon > <ludovico.cave...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Magnus Holmgren <holmg...@debian.org> >> wrote: >>> On lördagen den 16 maj 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>>> When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems >>>> like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, >>>> and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. >>> >>> However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 >>> of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains >>> some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it >>> without waiting for a new upstream release. >> >> Yes, I agree with that (and also with >> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dfsg-version-with-period.html). dfsg it >> is something that comes *after* the upstream release. > > I mean: repackaging for dfsg compliance is something that comes after > the upstream release, so "+dfsg1" is the right one. > > My problem is how to deal with "hg375" in combination with "+dfsg1".
Of course, you can always do 2.2~rc3+dfsg1+hg375 (a bit uglier, but works). > > Thanks, > Ludovivo -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
