Re: Q. What is the best practice about +dfsg and +ds extension?
Kentaro Hayashi <email@example.com> writes:
> What do you think about it?
> 1. We should use +dfsg-1 style
> 2. We should use +dfsgN-1 style
> 3. We should use +dfsg.N-1 style
> 4. Other
I would start with +dfsg-1 because it's fairly rare to have to iterate on
the repackaging. You can then switch to +dfsgN-1 with the second and
subsequent repackagings if needed. (Although if I knew in advance I would
probably need to iterate, I'd start with +dfsgN-1.)
There's an argument for consistency to always use +dfsgN-1, I guess, but I
don't think it matters enough to bother.
I would not use +dfsg.N-1. It's not consistent with the other places
where we add suffixes, such as backporting and stable updates.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>