Re: RFC: DEP-14 update, second attempt
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020, 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
Looks good to me, thanks for your work! I merged your branch and
I updated the status of the DEP in the table on the index page too.
> 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.
>
> I'd like to include this, but I left it out as it wasn't discussed before.
> Let me know what you think.
I don't think this needs to be spelled out. First when you don't have
"suites", the difference between a suite and a codename doesn't matter
much, you can say that the name of the distribution is both a suite and a
codename (and in fact the Release file in kali shows this use of the same
name in both fields). Also in the specific case of Kali, I will likely
switch to kali/latest rather than kali/kali-dev. ;-)
Cheers,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Reply to: