Hi Peter, On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 13:18 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 08:52:37AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > > > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:58 -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote: > > > > Done. > > > > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wizznic > > > > - dget > > > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wizznic/wizznic_0.9.2-preview2+dfsg-1.dsc > [snip] > > > > 4.) Having +dfsg as delimiter can be quite harmful. Usually ~dfsg is the > > preferred method as this will always be lower than the upstream version. > > Thus no matter what the next upstream version will look like, you can > > bump your package up to that version. > > Errr... Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is that? How exactly > can having "+dfsg" be harmful? > > My understanding is that both "+dfsg" and "~dfsg" are acceptable and it > is only ".dfsg" that may indeed be harmful if upstream decides to > release a next version with a new component that sorts lower than, well, > "dfsg" :) However, I really don't see what upstream's next version > number has to be so that it will cause problems with "+dfsg"; could you > please provide an example? If upstream bumps 0.9.2-preview2 to 0.9.2-preview2+ABBA (considering they have new ABBA tracks that are now available as musical score - just for making a point here) what then? This is what will happen: Checking for 0.9.2-preview2+dfsg-1 <= 0.9.2-preview2+ABBA+dfsg-1 will fail. Not that it's highly likely that this will happen a lot, but to not have to worry about such problems, I'd recommend always using ~dfsg instead of any other notation. -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part