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 <r...@debian.org>: > > Kentaro Hayashi <ken...@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 (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > -- Kentaro Hayashi <ken...@gmail.com>
