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

[Kentaro Hayashi <kenhys@gmail.com>]

Hi,


It seems that it is reasonable to do so.
(Use +dfsg-1 first, then switch to +dfsgN-1)

Thanks!


2021年10月5日(火) 13:57 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>


-- 
Kentaro Hayashi <kenhys@gmail.com>