On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon cave...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
I personally can't think of any situation where ~dfsg is useful.
If I want to rebuild
* Tomasz Muras tom...@muras.eu [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
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org 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
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org 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.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon cave...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org 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
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
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 counts
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 quick stats
Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org 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
9 matches
Mail list logo
