On Tuesday 26,October,2010 02:00 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin <hyper...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin <hyper...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>>>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >>>>> In trac-bitten to be exact. >>>> >>>> It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines >>> >>> Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and >>> manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? >> >> Yes, pretty much so. Or if the reasons do not apply any more, you can use the >> tarball as is. > > No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright > why, if not it's a bug (that should be filed it not there already); > also, a get-orig-source target in debian/rules would be nice to have.
That's exactly what I understood from "figure out why tarball was repacked". It's usually either documented in debian/changelog or debian/copyright. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
