On måndagen den 28 januari 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 28/01/2008, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > ... which describes the _content_ of the tarball, but not the _name_
> > (or extension) of the tarball. So there is no clarification whether
> > to use 'dfsg', 'debian', 'ds' or something else in the tarball name to
> > my knowlwedge.
>
> 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.
Whatever the suffix, what do you say about always using '-' as the separator?
Remember that hyphens are allowed in upstream versions. Since hyphens are
generally used to separate upstream from downstream, it would more clearly
indicate that the -dfsg* suffix is not really part of upstream's version
number.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.