Hi,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 06:44:03PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 16:10:44 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> > when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg
> > free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common
> > practice. However
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 10:38:54 -1000, David Prévot wrote:
> Le 08/09/2017 à 07:44, Simon McVittie a écrit :
> > This made me think that we should maybe only be doing this when
> > a *pre-existing* upstream version needs to be repacked.
> > […] when upstream releases
> > foo/1.2.4, even if the
Hi,
Le 08/09/2017 à 07:44, Simon McVittie a écrit :
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 16:10:44 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
>> when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg
>> free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common
>> practice.
[…]
> It's a coincidence
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 16:10:44 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg
> free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common
> practice. However some packages append '.dfsg', others use
> +dfsg and there are more formats
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg
free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common
practice. However some packages append '.dfsg', others use
+dfsg and there are more formats
5 matches
Mail list logo