Le jeudi 16 avril 2009 à 03:33, Paul Wise a écrit : > 2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard <email@example.com>: > > 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 versions are chosen by > people and people don't think alike. I think I prefer the plus variant > but I'm not fully sure why. Perhaps the -dfsg-1 might get confused > with a Debian version somewhere and perhaps the plus makes it more > clear that the version is modified. > > > OK, and why "dfsg1" and not simply "dfsg" ? > > The possibility exists of multiple non-free things being found over > time, this makes it clear that this is the first dfsg-ified tarball > for this upstream release. For later removals you can bump that > version to 2. 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... I'm surprised there is so many possibilities but no clear documentation about that... -- Laurent Léonard
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.