On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon <cave...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise <p...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimh7t=afpzxgpx048d_wcqc0+ka6fuyfe931...@mail.gmail.com