Hi Anton, On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 02:52:48AM +0400, Anton Martchukov wrote: > On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:57:20PM -0700, Hamish wrote: > > +dfsg into version name: > > as our build will be bit-for-bit identical to one built from a non- > > stripped version of the source (the only difference between the > > source tarballs being unused mac/windows dirs), I don't see a > > point in adding the +dfsg to the binary package version, it > > clutters for no reason. (if pbuilder method has issues, then fix > > pbuilder...) > > Does anybody have a clue if it will build by autobuilder fine? The autobuilders will find and use it just fine. > When debian changelog lists version 2.4.708 and corresponding > tarball is opencpn_2.4.708+dfsg.orig.tar.gz since some > non-dfsg binaries has been stripped off. > > E.g. pbuilder fails to find the tarball unless version in > changelog is changed to 2.4.708+dfsg. That's due to the naming convention. See http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version for in-depth discussion. You may use ~dfsg, +dfsg, -dfsg just fine inside upstream_version. Just be aware that ~dfsg is the only form that will allow upstream's original version to increase to any value and still allow a smooth upgrade as the ~ is always smaller than any other ascii char by design. That being said, of course if your Debian version is 2.4.708+dfsg-1 then this reads: * epoch: "" * upstream_version: 2.4.708+dfsg * debian_revision: 1 Therefor your orig tarball needs the +dfsg too (this is not part of the debian revision). In case you need this as regexp: (\d+:)?(.*)(-[\d\.]+(\+b\d+)?)? might work. (Untested though but should do for regular and Debian native versions) -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature