Raphael Hertzog wrote on 04/09/2020:
Hi,
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020, Paride Legovini wrote:
As the name of the development branch is not specified anymore, should dep14
ask for it to be the repository default branch? Otherwise there's no safe
I took this as granted. But maybe we should make it explicit, yes. I also
clarified that those recommandations are really for the cases where you
mix upstream development and Debian packaging in the same branch. I can
imagine someone picking 3.0 (native) packaging but keeping a separate
"main" branch with only upstream code and hosting packaging in
debian/latest...
So here's my counter proposal:
--- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
+++ b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn
@@ -201,12 +201,16 @@ Native packages
The above conventions mainly cater to the case where the upstream
developers and the package maintainers are not the same set of persons.
-
-When upstream is Debian (or one of its derivative), the upstream vendor
-should not use the usual `<vendor>/` prefix (but all others vendors should
-do so). The main development branch does not have to be named after
-the codename of the target distribution (although you are free to still
-use the codename if you wish so).
+By contrast, this section applies to native packages where upstream is
+Debian (or one of its derivatives) and where the packaging and upstream
+source code are managed in the same branch(es).
+
+In that specific situation, the upstream vendor should not use the usual
+`<vendor>/` prefix for their branches and tags (but all others vendors
+should do so) and they also don't have to follow the usual naming
+conventions for packaging branches (although they are free to do
+so if they wish). However the default branch of the repository (as pointed
+by the HEAD reference) should be a development branch.
When the package is shipped as a native source package (i.e. a single
tarball with no differentiation of the upstream sources and of the
+1, thanks!
Paride
