On 12/8/19 2:51 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 08/12/2019 13:13, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 12/8/19 12:24 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: >>> On 08/12/2019 11:56, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >>>> On 12/8/19 8:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: >>>> The package version should just be 5.0.0+dfsg without a revision, this >>>> should be set by d/watch using repacksuffix. >>> >>> According to [1] this is not true, it clearly states that the version >>> string should contain dfsg.N. Have any reference or motivation for >>> dropping the .N part? >> > >> The developers-reference documents the use of plain +dfsg, and this is >> what pretty much all other packages in the team do (either +dfsg or >> +ds), and because consistency is a good thing you should do the same. >> > ..] >> " >> >> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.en.html#repackaged-upstream-source> >> > > I don't see anything about the version string in that reference, only > recommendations for the tarball directory name.
That name includes the version string. > This means that we have two things regulating this: local habits here on > pkg-grass-devel and some at least semi-official documentation on the > debian wiki. > > My gut feeling is to stick to the docs (I have already repacked a > version, and having the .1 there from the beginning was helpful then). Wrong. Using the same practices as used in the team supersede general documentation. > I would appreciate if Andreas could make the final decision on this . I > can live with it any way. Andreas' role is only as a sponsor via SoB he is not actively maintaining packages in this team. If you maintain this package in Debian Science you're welcome to follow his lead there. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 _______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
