Hi, On 11.09.2012 16:48, Eugene Seliverstov wrote: > I prefered .dfsg variant for consistent versioning. Repackaging original > tarball > with removing PDF files leads to use of 'dfsg1' prefix so now full version is > '0.9.21.dfsg1-1'.
Your version is acceptable as it is larger than 0.9.21.dfsg-4. It might be ugly a bit dangerous and misleading, but it is feasible in your case. That said I realize this is not your fault, so let's deal with it. If upstream ever releases a new version you may consider switching to a better version scheme, though. Having that said, you still didn't include deltas from previous versions in Debian. Frankly, the difference is minor and mostly the changelog - but for consistency you should include it to your package. I gave you a link to the latest version which ever appeared in Debian. Please do a diff against your package and incorporate changes you aren't including yet (e.g. the version history in debian/changelog) >> * There is a SVN repository for the packaging [2]. Please update that >> and add it to your control file [3] [..] > Added VCS lines, fixed debian/rules and added > both README.source and get-orig-source target. I noticed you added VCS links - thanks. Please do also push your updates there. As a new maintainer, this is your repository now. :) If you prefer something else than SVN (or some other location to Alioth), please follow instructions on the wiki regarding collab-maint repositories [1], and push a pointer to the new location on the old repository. If you decide to do so, please update the VCS links in the package as well. > It is correct. Upstream added pdf sources only in development branch. > For now I removed PDFs from a dfsg tarball. Thanks. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject -- Arno Töll GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
