Re: dfsg bit in the package name
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon <cavedon@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
>>> I personally can't think of any situation where ~dfsg is useful.
>>
>> If I want to rebuild a package including the non-free bits, I could
>> just remove the "~dfsg" from the version and have it win over the one
>> the official repository.
>
> Hmm, I guess that makes sense. Usually I want the opposite though, the
> package without non-free bits should win over the one with non-free
> bits.
"+dfsg" makes sense for me as well.
So to summarize:
dfsg is a conventional way of naming a package, when the original
source has been changed. It usually happens when upstream software
contains some non-free elements. The changes should be documented in
README.Debian-source.
The recommended way of naming a package with the 'dfsg' bit is:
<UPSTREAM VER>+dfsg-<DEBIAN VER>
For example:
I have packaged foobar application which has just released version
1.2.3. Normally the package name would be: abc_1.2.3-1 - and it was
packaged as such.
I have then discovered that the package contains some files that can
not be distributed with the main Debian repository. I have removed
them from source package (from .orig.tar.gz) and released new package:
abc_1.2.3+dfsg-1.
Later on, I have found even more files that should be removed. I did
that and released abc_1.2.3+dfsg2-1. Finally, I've added new debconf
translations - this should only increase a Debian-specific version, so
the latest version of the package is: abc_1.2.3+dfsg2-2.
Is the above correct? I would like to ask Matthew to put something
like this into the FAQ.
cheers,
Tomek
Reply to: