Re: Standard to indicate repacking in version numbers?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
How are ?dfsg?, ?debian?, or ?ds? extensions? It's in the very middle of
the tarball name, and the extension would rather be ?((orig.)tar.)gz?
(there's the revision in the way, also).
It'd be clearer to talk about the string to include in version numbers,
and I agree that having a common pattern in the policy or the devref
would make sense. There are several combinations of the above, mixed
together with the use of ?+?, ?~? and ?.?, and getting a standard for
that couldn't hurt.
I agree with that we should have a common pattern. But I would vote
for a neutral extension not trying to describe the reasons for repackaging.
Some kind of <name>_<version>.repack.tar.gz comes to mind. This makes
clear that a changed upstream tarball is used. Those tarballs should
feature a mandatory debian/README.repack which states clearly the reasons
for the repackaging and debian/rules should have a mandatory