On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 08:10:55 +0000,
c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
To my knowledge in context of DPT and Salsa the branch name "debian/master" is used. When creating a new package are there any technical reasons not renaming that to "debian/main"?
Naming is a social thing, not a technical thing, so there is unlikely to be
any technical reason for or against any naming that fits the syntax rules.
One important non-technical reason not to choose a different branch name
for new packages is to keep all the team-maintained packages consistent.
If there is going to be any change to this branch
name, then I think it should be to debian/latest as per <
https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/> (which is the name used
in various other teams like GNOME), not debian/main.
Other teams don't use debian/main because that name would be confusing:
in Debian, "main" normally refers to the archive area that is not contrib, non-free or non-free-firmware (or in Ubuntu, the archive area that is
not universe etc.).
There are basically two models in DEP-14:
1. The latest development happens on debian/latest, and might be uploaded
to either unstable or experimental, whichever is more appropriate. If
experimental contains a version that is not ready for unstable,
and a new upload to unstable is needed, then create a temporary
debian/unstable or debian/trixie branch for it.
2. Uploads to unstable are done from debian/unstable. Uploads to
experimental are done from debian/experimental, when needed. There is
no debian/latest branch.
(1.) probably makes more sense for large teams like this one (and it's
what the GNOME team does). (2.) can be useful if your upstream has a
long-lived development branch, but that's not going to be the case for
most DPT packages.
When the GNOME team switched from debian/master to debian/latest, it
was a coordinated change applied to every package maintained by the team.
smcv
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)