On torsdagen den 16 april 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
> 2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard :
> > So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If
> > 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different
> > suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian
Le mercredi 29 avril 2009 à 13:20, Patrick Matthäi a écrit :
> Laurent Léonard schrieb:
> > Dear mentors,
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2+dfsg-1
>
> ...
>
> > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kio-ftps
> >
Laurent Léonard schrieb:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2+dfsg-1
...
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kio-ftps
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
contrib
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2+dfsg-1
of my package "kio-ftps".
It builds these binary packages:
kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 515507
The package can be found on mentors.debia
Le samedi 18 avril 2009 à 22:39, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Laurent Léonard writes:
> > I agree with that. My question only concerns thx "+dfsgX" versioning
> > instead of a simple "+dfsg" suffix in this case where there is only 1
> > documentation file dropped for DFSG reason.
>
> Given that +dfsg1
Laurent Léonard writes:
> I agree with that. My question only concerns thx "+dfsgX" versioning
> instead of a simple "+dfsg" suffix in this case where there is only 1
> documentation file dropped for DFSG reason.
Given that +dfsg1 sorts after +dfsg anyway, I think it's fine to omit the
version n
Le samedi 18 avril 2009 à 03:33, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/18 Laurent Léonard :
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licensing problem only concerns 1
> > documentation file in the package, other ones are under GPL-2+, so I
> > think dfsg versioning isn't needed...
>
> The upstream tarball isn't
2009/4/18 Laurent Léonard :
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licensing problem only concerns 1
> documentation file in the package, other ones are under GPL-2+, so I think
> dfsg versioning isn't needed...
The upstream tarball isn't fully DFSG-free so we remove the bad bits,
repack and add dfsg
Le jeudi 16 avril 2009 à 03:33, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard :
> > So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If
> > 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different
> > suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Deb
2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard :
> So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If
> 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different
> suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian policy...
Yes (but not very), yes (or the others), the
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 16:40, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
> > So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1
> > already exists in Sid) ?
>
> Yep.
>
> > What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ?
> > With or without the
2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
> So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1
> already exists in Sid) ?
Yep.
> What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? With or
> without the "-" character after "dfsg" ?
Sorting. 1.2.dfsg sorts after 1.2.1 b
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 15:58, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
> >> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified
> >> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix?
> >
> > I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this...
>
> I can't find any
2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
>> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified
>> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix?
>
> I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this...
I can't find any reference for this but yes, add +dfsg1 to the
upstream version num
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 02:53, Rogério Brito a écrit :
> Hi, Laurent.
>
> IANADD, but I just saw your package. And I have some comments.
>
> On Apr 14 2009, Laurent Léonard wrote:
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
> >
> > The package appears to be
Hi, Laurent.
IANADD, but I just saw your package. And I have some comments.
On Apr 14 2009, Laurent Léonard wrote:
> It builds these binary packages:
> kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
* I'm not so sure about this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2-2
of my package "kio-ftps".
It builds these binary packages:
kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 515507
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net
17 matches
Mail list logo
