Hi, On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >And I would suggest that we generalize the DEP-14 naming scheme as part of > >our git packaging policy... > > I'm all for standardization, but I do like the shorter names for the common > case where you only need the unstable version. Certainly if there are vendor > or series differences, the namespaces make a lot of sense. But most of my > packages don't need it.
This is something that you don't know... a derivative can always want to fork for whatever reason (the most common one being that we lag behind upstream). And another reason for the namespace is to not collide with the upstream namespace. And this one is almost always there (given most upstream use git nowadays). > Would you be open to allowing such simplification in the common case in > DEP-14? Given the above, I believe that having just debian/master is better than encouraging the use of "master". I think the DEP reached a good compromise already. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
