Am 15.09.19 um 08:06 schrieb Mechtilde Stehmann: [...] >> I think the package looks good. You don't need to append the +ds in this >> case and I suggest to just package it as 1.25. > > To not mark a version as a repacked version was the reason, that it > takes much time for me to understand how to do repacking. I couldn't > find examples where I could study it. > > Why should it make a differnt to mark if it is a dfsg intended repacking > or regarding other points of the policy (not shipping own libraries? It is rather common with Java packages that they already ship prebuilt binaries, so we decided not to append a suffix when we repack them. I only add a +dfsg suffix when I significantly diverge from upstream for DFSG reasons. [...] > This is the first time to look at reverse-dependencies. So what is the > task I have to do? > > Should I build all packages of the list to test whether they build > without problems? Simply put, a new upstream version should improve something and not break other packages. Rebuilding reverse-dependencies is a good way to check that or you can rebuild at least some packages that are known to break easily. Just make sure that everything else continues to work and not just your own packages. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature