On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 08:10:55 +0000, c.bu...@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
