[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Q. What is the best practice about +dfsg and +ds extension?



Quoting Russ Allbery (2021-10-05 06:57:00)
> Kentaro Hayashi <kenhys@xdump.org> 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.

Exactly my practice and thinking as well. :-)


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: