dfsg handling

[Ludovico Cavedon]

Hi,

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Patrick Matthäi <pmatthaei at debian.org> wrote:
>> What is the correct handling of dfsg?  Use 2.6.1.dfsg instead of
>> 2.6.1~dfsg?  Some packages have ~, others have . and others have +.
>>
>
> 2.6.1.dfsg.1-1 should be the right one.

Lintian started suggesting using the +, because of ordering issues:
see http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dfsg-version-with-period.html

Cheers,
Ludovico