Hi, Le 08/09/2017 à 07:44, Simon McVittie a écrit : > On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 16:10:44 +0200, Guido Günther wrote: >> when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg >> free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common >> practice. […] > It's a coincidence that you should mention this today. I've just run > into a situation where routinely appending +dfsg causes brokenness: […] > This made me think that we should maybe only be doing this when > a *pre-existing* upstream version needs to be repacked. > […] when upstream releases > foo/1.2.4, even if the non-freeness has not been fixed, the > maintainer would repack it as 1.2.4 rather than 1.2.4+dfsg.
That is be a bit misleading: since we are not using the upstream version, using the same version is a lie. Another data point: I used to package something that upstream was also distributing on their own, and I used a tilde before “dfsg” to avoid confusion. That way, people using upstream version (picked from upstream servers) was always higher than the version in Debian (and because upstream version didn’t follow policy or even FHS, switching from one version to another would cause huge brokenness…). Regards David
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
