~dfsg vs +dfsg
dr at jones.dk
Sat Aug 20 18:42:45 UTC 2011
On 11-08-20 at 08:29pm, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> recently on debian-mentors@, i was asked why i would version a
> dfsg-repackaged source package as "<version>~dfsg-1" (which is sorted
> before "<version>-1"), rather than "<version>+dfsg-1" (which is sorted
> after "<version>-1")
> i thought long and hard, but in the end i couldn't come up with a good
> answer, so i said "because this is what i am used to from
> pkg-multimedia" (which is not a good reason per se)
> the only possible reason i can think of, is that if upstream decides
> to re-release a dfsg-compliant package under the same version, then
> this would ease the migration process.
> is this it, or are there some deeper thoughts involved?
Yes, that is it (for me, at least).
> btw, i have also done some statistics based on the packages installed
> on my laptop:
> 32 $(VER)+dfsg
> 28 $(VER)~dfsg
> 28 $(VER).dfsg
> 5 $(VER)dfsg
> 4 $(VER)-dfsg
> so +dfsg and ~dfgs are quite on par (though .dfsg is as well, and it
> seems almost everybody agrees that this is a bad idea; just like using
> - -dfsg)
In my opinion it is not a battle between + and ~ but picking the right
one for the specific situation:
If unavoidable (e.g. already released and then repackaged with parts
stripped) then use +, else use ~.
(Quite possibly there are more to it than that, but I believe above
covers the general cases).
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers