José Luis Segura Lucas wrote: > El 27/06/12 12:48, Benoît Knecht escribió: > > I just meant that you should use something like opts=dversionmangle (see > > uscan(1)) so that uscan would remove the "+20120619git27g55c0f4e" part > > before comparing the debian version with the upstream one. But if you're > > not going to package snapshot versions on a regular basis, maybe that's > > not necessary. > > Ok, I will take a look again that option of the watch file, I have never > seen before. I'll read carefully uscan man.
Actually, Boris' suggestion (cherry-picking the changes you need and including them as patches) is even better, you should consider doing that and dropping the "+20120619git27g55c0f4e" entirely. > > Yeah, it seems best to discuss it with upstream. Regarding the GPL-3 for > > the packaging, since it's incompatible with the GPL-2, it would be much > > better if you agreed to GPL-2+ for debian/*; that way, the source > > package as a whole can be considered GPL-2. > I don't know if there is a reason behind their choice of GPL-2 instead > GPL-3... but I can ask them. If they prefer keeping on GPL-2, I can > accept GPL-2+ for debian/* if it simplifies the licensing issues of the > whole package. Well, I don't think you should ask upstream to change their license to GPL-3; my point was that, as a packager, it is good practice to choose a license that is compatible with upstream's (i.e. equally or more permissive). Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120628071229.ga28...@marvin.lan
