On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:42:09 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote: > Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that > joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different > packages use a different format, here are some quick stats from packages > in unstable (with the counts): > 1179 +dfsg > 1119 .dfsg > 233 ~dfsg > 201 -dfsg > > Should I use "+" or "."? Should that be somehow standardized or > mentioned in the faq? Or do you reckon that it doesn't make any > difference at all and should be left up to maintainers?
The difference is in the sorting: lintian tells us the following about it: $ lintian-info -t dfsg-version-with-period N: dfsg-version-with-period N: N: The version number of this package contains ".dfsg", probably in a N: form like "1.2.dfsg1". There is a subtle sorting problem with this N: version method: 1.2.dfsg1 is considered a later version than 1.2.1. If N: upstream adds another level to its versioning, finding a good version N: number for the next upstream release will be awkward. N: N: Upstream may never do this, in which case this isn't a problem, but N: it's normally better to use "+dfsg" instead (such as "1.2+dfsg1"). "+" N: sorts before ".", so 1.2 < 1.2+dfsg1 < 1.2.1 as normally desired. N: N: Severity: minor, Certainty: possible N: Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Bettina Wegner: Jan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
