On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:10:48 PM Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> wrote: > > Why do you like "~dfsg" more than "+dfsg"? > > Ahha! Because I've been burned by this before, hilariously! > > Since sometimes this is a mistake -- and if often is -- when they fix it, > they re-post the same version with a new tarball (eww!), but this means I > can re-upload a 1.0. If you have a +dfsg, you would need to do a > 1.0+dfsg1.notreally-1, rather than a 1.0, which is unfortunate
Thanks. :) I suppose it could be handy when something irrelevant is shipped in orig.tar. After all "~dfsg" can be changed for "+dfsg" but not the other way, at least not after upload... > It's cosmetic, sure, but it has come in handy a few times :) Makes sense, thank you. I haven't seen such case yet. > FWIW, I don't reject packages out of the blue, this was a friendly reject, > not a "kthxbye" reject. I'm not blaming you, Paul. :) Tianon asked you to reject and he is the maintainer. > Routine rejects like this are for the maintainer's > benefit, to quickly change a thing, rather than there was a problem. > > Please don't think I rejected it because tianon or I thought there was an > issue with it that prevented it from being in main, it was a "well, it's > not in Debian, so let's just fix it right quick" type thing. I understand and agree that fix-n-reupload thing makes sense. Though IMHO on this instance there is nothing to fix. Just Tianon being a bit territorial and me being impatient... :) -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov. --- Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers. -- Bruce Calvert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers