Re: dfsg bit in the package name

To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: dfsg bit in the package name
From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:39:49 +0800
Message-id: <AANLkTi=Qk_1=MfZk14R_-eupC6k1303wRzjGu4i5iDLx@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <i4hp5d$pv1$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <4C6C53B1.8040905@gmail.com> <20100818222335.GX17869@belanna.comodo.priv.at> <i4hp5d$pv1$1@dough.gmane.org>

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Felipe Sateler <fsateler@debian.org> wrote:

> And if there are any prospects of upstream cleaning up their tree, the ~
> symbol makes it possible to re-release the same tarball without the
> offending files.

It would be better if upstream just incremented their version than
re-released a version.

http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#ReleasesandVersions

I personally can't think of any situation where ~dfsg is useful.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: dfsg bit in the package name
  - From: Ludovico Cavedon <cavedon@debian.org>

References:
- dfsg bit in the package name
  - From: Tomasz Muras <nexor1984@gmail.com>
- Re: dfsg bit in the package name
  - From: gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org>
- Re: dfsg bit in the package name
  - From: Felipe Sateler <fsateler@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: php-fpdf - watch and epoch trouble
Next by Date: Re: Subject: [Uploaded] RFS: testng (updated package)
Previous by thread: Re: dfsg bit in the package name
Next by thread: Re: dfsg bit in the package name
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread