On Sat, 29 Aug 2020, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
> DEP-14 will recommend the use of debian/latest for a package uploaded
> to sid/unstable? or debian/latest is a pre work before uploaded to
> sid/unstable?
It is to be expected that debian/latest keeps switching between different
states:
- in sync
On 2020-08-29 01:05, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But given that we recommend upstream/latest for the upstream branch, I'm now
> leaning towards using debian/latest as default as well.
I like this! There's a nice symmetry to it that makes it very intuitive,
I think.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 8:23 PM Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 01:05:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > But given that we recommend upstream/latest for the upstream branch, I'm
> now
> > leaning towards using debian/latest as default as well.
>
> FWIW, I like this better than
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 01:05:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But given that we recommend upstream/latest for the upstream branch, I'm now
> leaning towards using debian/latest as default as well.
FWIW, I like this better than any of the other suite-neutral names that
I'd previously suggested.
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:08:17PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:00:02 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> } } [ ... good input ... ]
>
> How to go from good input to accepting DEP-14 ?
FWIW I fully agree with Simon.
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 05:52:47PM +0300, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Finalizing and publishing DEP-14 would be nice.
>
> I have been using git-buildpackage for all of my packages for many years
> already, and thus been automatically following these guidelines as they are
> followed
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:08:17PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:00:02 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
} } [ ... good input ... ]
How to go from good input to accepting DEP-14 ?
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:00:02 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> DEP-14 includes a renaming of default branch, and even if it suggests
> using "debian/master" instead, it is explicitly not strict about that
> but suggests alternatively using "debian/unstable" or "debian/sid"
> instead.
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2020-08-26 15:34:20)
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > The good things of https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ are in use.
> > But https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ it self looks abandonned.
>
> Why are you saying that?
>
> >
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, Geert Stappers wrote:
> The good things of https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ are in use.
> But https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ it self looks abandonned.
Why are you saying that?
> What is needed to official accept DEP-14?
> (and to give
Hi,
Вт 25 авг 2020 @ 17:52 Otto Kekäläinen :
> - git-buildpackage in my use has the branch 'pristine-tar' which DEP-14
> does not cover
As I can see, DEP-14 [dep14] mentions pristine-tar:
If the package maintainers use the pristine-tar tool to efficiently
store a byte-for-byte copy of the
Hi,
I'm interested in finalizing and publishing DEP-14.
I've been (and still) working on apply DEP-14 on some DPMT package
(while I work on some bug package, not as bulk)
Yes, git-buildpackage use 'master' as default branch, but you can
configure it on d/gbp.conf. I don't know if exist a plan
Hello!
Finalizing and publishing DEP-14 would be nice.
I have been using git-buildpackage for all of my packages for many years
already, and thus been automatically following these guidelines as they are
followed by git-buildpackage.
There are only two diversions I've noted:
- in
Hi,
The good things of https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ are in use.
But https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ it self looks abandonned.
What is needed to official accept DEP-14?
(and to give https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ status "adopted")
Groeten
Geert
14 matches
Mail list logo
