On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Tormod Volden, 2016-05-06, 11:21: >> >> >> -<filename><replaceable>packagename</replaceable>-<replaceable>upstream-version</replaceable>.orig</filename> >> as the >> >> +<filename><replaceable>packagename</replaceable>-<replaceable>upstream-version</replaceable>+dfsg</filename> >> as the > > > NACK. That would be misleading if the tarball was repacked for reason > unrelated to DFSG.
So is it current practice, and policy, to use .orig? How misleading is that? :) I thought it was a typo in the above text. > > Once we fix #560287, we could perhaps say that the directory should be: > > <packagename>-<upstream-version>-<repack-suffix> What is the repack-suffix? > > or something similar. > > Related bugs: #470960 Oh, reading that report: Exactly my point. And now 7 years and still counting. So while waiting to decide which of the good solutions are best, let's leave the worst and obvious wrong in place. Tormod PS. I didn't think about it initially, but I guess "NACK" means "thanks for your patch and your interest in the developer reference, but I don't think this is the best solution." > > -- > Jakub Wilk
