dfsg handling

[Eugen Dedu]

Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
> 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

Good hit!

-- 
Eugen