* Tomasz Muras [100824 19:34]:
> 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.
I do not think using "dfsg" makes sense if it was not repacked to
remove no
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise 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,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise 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 h
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise 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.
Still, it is not
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> And if there are any prospects of upstream cleaning up their tree, the ~
> symbol makes it possible to re-release the same tarball without the
> offending files.
It would be better if upstream just incremented their version than
re-release
Felipe Sateler writes:
> And if there are any prospects of upstream cleaning up their tree, the ~
> symbol makes it possible to re-release the same tarball without the
> offending files.
Yes, either ~ or + will work provided that you haven't just realized that
upstream has files that have to be
On 18/08/10 18:23, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:42:09 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote:
>
>> Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that
>> joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different
>> packages use a different format, here are some quic
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:42:09 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote:
> Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that
> joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different
> packages use a different format, here are some quick stats from packages
> in unstable (with the cou
Hi Mentors,
Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that
joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different
packages use a different format, here are some quick stats from packages
in unstable (with the counts):
1179 +dfsg
1119 .dfsg
233 ~dfsg
9 matches
Mail list logo
