Hi Peter, On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 03:37:35PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 01:06:18PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: [...] > And I also just thought of something else :) If a package needs a DFSG > or DS cleanup in its very first upload, then +dfsg and ~dfsg are > functionally equivalent and you're free to prefer ~dfsg, just as I think > I'm free to prefer +dfsg :) Yes. Absolutely right. Even though the +svn and +git you've listed above are very real updates that may be wanted. Except for +cvs that'll work as d << g << s but c >> d. ;-) So bumping a +dfsg to UPVER+cvs+dfsg won't work. Also +bzr won't be possible that way. Which limits you in terms of the possible notations of the new upstream version and may go unnoticed until the dak will throw it back to you - which is plain not nice. > However, if a package has already been > uploaded and somebody finds a DFSG violation, the maintainer has to > upload a new version with a *higher* version number - and that's when > ~dfsg will simply not work. So... to not have to worry about such > problems, I personally always use +dfsg instead of any other notation :P In my experience it's a first-time upload that will need +dfsg but after that you'll want to convert to ~dfsg for all subsequent upstream versions. That way it'll scale much better from what I've seen already. > Thanks for the time spent reading this, and keep up the great work! Thanks for your comments! -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature