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