Le samedi 18 avril 2009 à 03:33, Paul Wise a écrit : > 2009/4/18 Laurent Léonard <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licensing problem only concerns 1 > > documentation file in the package, other ones are under GPL-2+, so I > > think dfsg versioning isn't needed... > > The upstream tarball isn't fully DFSG-free so we remove the bad bits, > repack and add dfsg to the upstream version. It doesn't matter how > much is nasty, if you repack the tarball for DFSG reasons, dfsg gets > added to the version number. I agree with that. My question only concerns thx "+dfsgX" versioning instead of a simple "+dfsg" suffix in this case where there is only 1 documentation file dropped for DFSG reason. -- Laurent Léonard
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.