On 18/08/10 18:23, gregor herrmann wrote: > 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:
And if there are any prospects of upstream cleaning up their tree, the ~ symbol makes it possible to re-release the same tarball without the offending files. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
