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

Re: RFC: DEP-14 update, second attempt



On 11/29/20 10:11 AM, Paride Legovini wrote:
> I tried to do a synthesis of past August/September thread on the
> finalization of DEP-14 [1], see:
> 
> https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/1/diffs

This all looks great to me!

> I tried to stick to what I believe we had consensus on, however I think
> that point (3) has a shortcoming: it allows <vendor>/<suite> branches,
> but doesn't cover cases where <vendor> has no development _suite_. For
> example it wouldn't allow the kali/kali-dev branch, as Kali doesn't have
> suites (IIUC). This case could be covered by adding:
> 
>    However, when `<vendor>` has no concept of suite for the
>    development release but has a fixed codename for it, the
>    use of the `<vendor>/<codename>` scheme is accepted.
Assuming the acceptance of the other text, I think the consensus is that
kali/kali-dev is perfectly fine. I'm not sure if additional text is
necessary to clarify this, especially since this isn't actually binding
on Kali anyway. But at the same time, I have no objection to that
additional text either.

-- 
Richard

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: