Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 15:58, Paul Wise a écrit : > 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard <email@example.com>: > >> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified > >> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix? > > > > I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this... > > I can't find any reference for this but yes, add +dfsg1 to the > upstream version number. So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1 already exists in Sid) ? What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? With or without the "-" character after "dfsg" ? > > More best practices for the orig.tar.gz are available here: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices#bpp-or >igtargz The only reason I see that could be invoked to drop "*~" files is the archive size, I'm not sure it is justifiable for a 50 KB archive... I'm almost sure it is impossible to reupload the source tarball, I read that somewhere in the documentation. And it seems to be logic if several package revisions use a diff file based on it. -- Laurent Léonard
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.