* Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com>, 2012-01-21, 13:44:
Then this source package will disappear, and its binary will be built from pristine gcc sources.Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What if FSF decides to free the documentation one day?* Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Right, that was a silly argument. Thanks for pointing that out.
As for the name, a quick look at the changelog will show that I obtained it by replacing "4.4" with "4.5" in the name of the source package that mine is based on.
Still, I see no reason to include "dfsg" or "non-dfsg" in any package name (other than maybe "I want to repeat mistakes of my predecessors" :P).
-- Jakub Wilk