Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1250650
| From | Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.bugs.dist |
| Subject | Bug#1105759: breaking gbp-config out into a separate binary package |
| Date | 2025-06-21 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <L02ox-c5ZI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <KMkOl-34Ly-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KZKhX-bUcT-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KZL4l-bUJQ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <KMkOl-34Ly-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KZL4l-bUJQ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Sean, On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 03:37:43PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Guido, > > In #1105759 we have been discussing whether git-deborig, which is > invoked by git-debpush, could read the upstream tag format out of > debian/gbp.conf. Currently it tries several possibilities and fails if > more than one of these tags exists, or if none of them do. In those > cases the user has to supply the full upstream tag name. > > We'd want to do this by invoking gbp-config. But adding a dependency on > the whole of gbp is undesirable, because that pulls in loads. While > currently most users of git-debpush probably already have gbp installed, > we are hoping that git-debpush can be used for things like mass > source-only uploads in minimal environments, and the like. > > What do you think about breaking gbp-config out into its own binary > package? That would work form me (and we've had other situations where that would be useful in the past). `gbp config` (as all other subcommands) depends on classes from the `gbp` module so we'd need to split out the minimal subset there too to get a smaller set of dependencies (we do something similar for the git-buildpackage-rpm to not have `git-buildpackage` depend on rpm tooling). A simple autopkg test would make sure that we don't break this on refactors. Cheers, -- Guido > > Thanks. > > -- > Sean Whitton
Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2025-06-20 04:20 +0200
Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-06-20 15:50 +0200
Bug#1105759: breaking gbp-config out into a separate binary package Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-06-20 16:40 +0200
Bug#1105759: breaking gbp-config out into a separate binary package Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org> - 2025-06-21 11:10 +0200
Bug#1108140: git-buildpackage: break gbp-config out into a separate binary package Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-06-21 12:40 +0200
Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-06-21 14:40 +0200
Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion [and 1 more messages] Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org> - 2025-06-23 11:30 +0200
Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-06-20 16:40 +0200
Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> - 2025-06-22 02:30 +0200
csiph-web