Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 16:40, Paul Wise a écrit : > 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard <email@example.com>: > > So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1 > > already exists in Sid) ? > > Yep. > > > What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? > > With or without the "-" character after "dfsg" ? > > Sorting. 1.2.dfsg sorts after 1.2.1 but 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort > before 1.2.1. See dpkg --compare-versions and debian-policy. So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian policy... > > > The only reason I see that could be invoked to drop, or 0.2dfsg1-2 or > > similar "*~" files is the archive size, I'm not sure it is justifiable > > for a 50 KB archive... > > If you're already repacking due to non-free stuff you can remove > whatever else you want to remove. OK. > > > 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. > > If you bump the upstream version (by appending dfsg1 or similar) that > means a new upstream tarball. OK, and why "dfsg1" and not simply "dfsg" ? -- Laurent Léonard
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.