Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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 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. Hmm, I guess that makes sense. Usually I want the opposite though, the package without non-free bits should win over the one with non-free bits. +dfsg makes sense for me as well. 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. The changes should be documented in README.Debian-source. The recommended way of naming a package with the 'dfsg' bit is: UPSTREAM VER+dfsg-DEBIAN VER For example: I have packaged foobar application which has just released version 1.2.3. Normally the package name would be: abc_1.2.3-1 - and it was packaged as such. I have then discovered that the package contains some files that can not be distributed with the main Debian repository. I have removed them from source package (from .orig.tar.gz) and released new package: abc_1.2.3+dfsg-1. Later on, I have found even more files that should be removed. I did that and released abc_1.2.3+dfsg2-1. Finally, I've added new debconf translations - this should only increase a Debian-specific version, so the latest version of the package is: abc_1.2.3+dfsg2-2. Is the above correct? I would like to ask Matthew to put something like this into the FAQ. cheers, Tomek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimh7t=afpzxgpx048d_wcqc0+ka6fuyfe931...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
* 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 remove non-dfsg-free stuff. For other reasons I think ds is sometimes chosen. (Though there are not really that many other legitimate reasons). Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100824205549.gb13...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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 version than re-released a version. http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#ReleasesandVersions I personally can't think of any situation where ~dfsg is useful. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=qk_1=mfzk14r_-eupc6k1303wrzjgu4i5i...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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. Still, it is not nice to have some packages using +dfsg and some ~dfsg, as it creates confusion. Ciao, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=xx15ylew16r3ewezg-p0kr8vtwjidgu0kb...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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 ~dfsg from the version and have it win over the one the official repository. Hmm, I guess that makes sense. Usually I want the opposite though, the package without non-free bits should win over the one with non-free bits. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimciuaz1yycffrwcrqmgkg2-tg+xotiyhrzj...@mail.gmail.com
dfsg bit in the package name
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 201 -dfsg Should I use + or .? Should that be somehow standardized or mentioned in the faq? Or do you reckon that it doesn't make any difference at all and should be left up to maintainers? cheers, Tomek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c6c53b1.8040...@gmail.com
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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): 1179 +dfsg 1119 .dfsg 233 ~dfsg 201 -dfsg Should I use + or .? Should that be somehow standardized or mentioned in the faq? Or do you reckon that it doesn't make any difference at all and should be left up to maintainers? The difference is in the sorting: lintian tells us the following about it: $ lintian-info -t dfsg-version-with-period N: dfsg-version-with-period N: N: The version number of this package contains .dfsg, probably in a N: form like 1.2.dfsg1. There is a subtle sorting problem with this N: version method: 1.2.dfsg1 is considered a later version than 1.2.1. If N: upstream adds another level to its versioning, finding a good version N: number for the next upstream release will be awkward. N: N: Upstream may never do this, in which case this isn't a problem, but N: it's normally better to use +dfsg instead (such as 1.2+dfsg1). + N: sorts before ., so 1.2 1.2+dfsg1 1.2.1 as normally desired. N: N: Severity: minor, Certainty: possible N: Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Bettina Wegner: Jan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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 from packages in unstable (with the counts): 1179 +dfsg 1119 .dfsg 233 ~dfsg 201 -dfsg Should I use + or .? Should that be somehow standardized or mentioned in the faq? Or do you reckon that it doesn't make any difference at all and should be left up to maintainers? The difference is in the sorting: lintian tells us the following about it: $ lintian-info -t dfsg-version-with-period N: dfsg-version-with-period N: N: The version number of this package contains .dfsg, probably in a N: form like 1.2.dfsg1. There is a subtle sorting problem with this N: version method: 1.2.dfsg1 is considered a later version than 1.2.1. If N: upstream adds another level to its versioning, finding a good version N: number for the next upstream release will be awkward. N: N: Upstream may never do this, in which case this isn't a problem, but N: it's normally better to use +dfsg instead (such as 1.2+dfsg1). + N: sorts before ., so 1.2 1.2+dfsg1 1.2.1 as normally desired. N: N: Severity: minor, Certainty: possible N: 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. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dfsg bit in the package name
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 that have to be removed. Everyone used + or . to start with because they had to go from 1.6 to 1.6+dfsg versions, for which ~ won't work. But after that first conversion, + or ~ is just a matter of personal preference. (I would avoid -, even though it works, because people tend to get confused about version numbers containing more than one dash.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878w438idv@windlord.stanford.edu
