On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:31:18AM +0200, David Douard wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > so what's your opinion? Do you want me to make a 0.12.0+dfsg-1 package or > is the already uploaded one is eventually enough? I would change the version for my own package. > I'm not sure the dfsg flag really makes sense here since the removed files > are not removed for licencing reasons, but mainly because they are useless... If files are removed for other reasons, the accepted practice is to add a +ds suffix. > On 07/02/2015 02:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 15:11:34 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:36:59AM +0200, David Douard wrote: > >>>>> Version : 0.12.0-1 > >>>> I think the common practice is to bump the version after a ftp-team reject. > >>> Yes, but i've discussed this Julien (jcristau) and we thought it was simpler to > >>> keep the same version, since I've modified the Files-Excluded field of the debian/copyright > >>> (thus the orig tarball). > >> I'm not sure what's the reasoning behind this. If the version was changed > >> to 0.12.0+dfsg-1 then it would be OK. Maybe there is some misunderstanding > >> here? > >> > > The reasoning is it saves having to add versionmangle options in > > d/watch, and I didn't think the version number change was necessary as > > the previous version was never shipped. > > > > Cheers, > > Julien -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature