[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Standard to indicate repacking in version numbers?

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 

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.

Reply to: