opencpn: 5.0.0 update

[Andreas Tille]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 02:51:27PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 08/12/2019 13:13, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > On 12/8/19 12:24 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> On 08/12/2019 11:56, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> >>> On 12/8/19 8:27 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> >>> The package version should just be 5.0.0+dfsg without a revision, this
> >>> should be set by d/watch using repacksuffix.
> >>
> >> According to [1] this is not true, it clearly states that the version
> >> string should contain dfsg.N. Have any reference or motivation for
> >> dropping the .N part?
> > 
> 
> > The developers-reference documents the use of plain +dfsg, and this is
> > what pretty much all other packages in the team do (either +dfsg or
> > +ds), and because consistency is a good thing you should do the same.
> > 
> ..]
> > "
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.en.html#repackaged-upstream-source> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything about the version string in that reference, only
> recommendations for the tarball directory name.
> 
> This means that we have two things regulating this: local habits here on
> pkg-grass-devel and some at least semi-official documentation on the
> debian wiki.
> 
> My gut feeling is to stick to the docs (I  have already repacked a
> version, and having the .1 there from the beginning was helpful then).
> 
> I would appreciate if Andreas could make the final decision on this . I
> can live with it any way.

I agree with Bas and in Debian Med and Debian Science team we also use
just +dfsg without any versioning since its just simple and can do
without any additional means just by uscan.

Kind regards

       Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de