On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:26:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> following the initial discussion we had in August
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/08/thrd2.html#00499), I have
> written a first draft of the Debian Enhancement Proposal that I suggested.
> It's now online at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14 and also attached
> below so that you can easily reply and comment.
>
> I have left one question where I have had conflicting feedback
> and I'm not sure what's best. Thus I will welcome a larger set of
> opinions on this specific question (search for "QUESTION" in the
> text).
[…]
> 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?
> QUESTION: some people have argued to use debian/master as the latest
> packaging targets sometimes sid and sometimes experimental. Should we
> standardize on this? Or should we explicitly allow this as an alternative?
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?
thanks,
iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature