Hi, Am Dienstag, den 20.05.2014, 19:10 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > I'm now extensively using your reimplementation of Files-Excluded.
Great, given that you do not extensively report bugs I take that works reasonably well. > I agree that your principle of "least surprise" is reasonable and thus I'm > fine that the version of the tarball is not automatically appended by > the string '+dfsg' (as it was in my implementation). However, good > packaging practices say that you should add something to a repackaged > tarball which reflects that there was a change to follow DFSG and I > personally do not think that it is a good idea to have two files with > the same name but different content (the original + the stripped > tarball). In most cases, the filenames will be different, as upstream does not use "_" and ".orig", though. > Having two files with same name but different content does > not fit the "least surprise" principle in my eyes. :-) True. > So what would be your suggestion to solve this issue to get some > appendix to the version number. I think editing each debian/watch > file an mangling names is a bit clumsy. I don’t think its too bad, and at least its explicit, but I don’t use that feature myself (yet). Would it be less clumsy if you did not have to specify some specific sed expression, but could rather had a simple way to flag uscan to „do the usual and commonly accepted version mangling“? That would be more declarative, less line-noisy and less for you to type. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [email protected] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: [email protected] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devscripts-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devscripts-devel
