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 <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
