Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1291243

Bug#1134655: ITP: forge -- Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface.

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:

> Guillem Jover [24/Apr  2:01pm +02] wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 22:12:55 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Package: wnpp
>>> Severity: wishlist
>>> Owner: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
>>>
>>> * Package name    : forge
>>>   Version         : 0.4.0-1
>>>   Upstream Author : Andrew Nesbitt
>>> * URL             : https://github.com/git-pkgs/forge
>>> * License         : Expat
>>>   Programming Lang: Go
>>>   Description     : Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface.
>>>
>>>  Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab,
>>>  Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface.
>>>
>>> https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/forge
>>> https://salsa.debian.org/jas/forge/-/pipelines
>>
>> This uses an extremely generic name for the package and program,
>> please rename this (or ideally ask upstream in the existing ticket
>> you filed) to something more unique.
>
> I agree, 'forge' is extremely generic.

Agreed.  And it is already used in Debian, so impossible to re-use:

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/forge

What do people think would be a better name for the source package?  Any
objections to 'forge-git'?  Sometimes names like 'forge-go' or
'forge-golang' is used, but I've always found them a bit ugly.  I find
'forge-git' a bit more descriptive of what it does.

Upstream replied and will not rename the project.  I think shipping
/usr/bin/forge with a Conflicts:snap (which also provides
/usr/bin/forge) in a binary package 'forge' would be acceptable.  Any
objections?  Renaming the binary names of upstream in Debian will be
quite confusing, unless there is any consensus between
RedHat/ArchLinux/Guix/etc to use the same non-upstream name.  And I
doubt we'll achieve that.  Is there some other reasonable alternative?

/Simon

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Bug#1134655: ITP: forge -- Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface. Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2026-04-24 14:10 +0200
  Bug#1134655: ITP: forge -- Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface. Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2026-04-27 23:10 +0200
    Bug#1134655: ITP: forge -- Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface. Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2026-04-27 23:50 +0200
      Bug#1134655: ITP: forge -- Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface. Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2026-04-28 09:00 +0200

csiph-web