On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:21:56AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > > Packaging branches and tags
> > > ===========================
> > >
> > > Packaging branches should be named according to the codename of the
> > > target distribution. In the case of Debian, that means for example
> > > `debian/sid`, `debian/jessie`, `debian/experimental`,
> > > `debian/wheezy`, `debian/wheezy-backports`, etc. We specifically avoid
> > > "suite" names because those tend to evolve over time ("stable" becomes
> > > "oldstable" and so on).
> > >
> > > The Git repository listed in debian/control's `Vcs-Git` field should
> > > usually have its HEAD point to the branch corresponding to the
> > > distribution where new upstream versions are usually sent. For Debian,
> > > it will usually be `debian/sid` (or sometimes `debian/experimental`).
> >
> > I find this paragraph confusing. With gbp, this is where new Debian
> > developments are made, and new upstream versions are sent to
> > upstream/xxx. Or do you mean something else here?
>
> Is it clearer if I rewrite it this way ?
>
> « The Git repository listed in debian/control's `Vcs-Git` field should
> usually have its HEAD point to the branch where new upstream versions
> are being packaged. For Debian, it will usually be `debian/sid` (or
> sometimes `debian/experimental`) »
Yes, (to me) that is much more clear.
> > Interesting. Assuming a normal Debian package that has just a few
> > backports (as opposed to every sid release being backported), and which
> > imports only upstream tarballs/snapshots (not the whole history), I
> > expect that a high proportion of the commits would happen on this
> > branch. In which case, why not make it 'master', without debian/ ? Is it
> > (only) in order to cleanly support multiple vendors?
>
> Henrique answered to that. The non-prefixed namespace is dedicated
> to upstream development.
Ack.
Thank you,
iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature