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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1250676

Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion [and 1 more messages]

Show all headers | View raw

Guido Günther writes ("Re: breaking gbp-config out into a separate binary package"):
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 03:37:43PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > 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.

Cool.  That sounds promising.  I think that would enable us to make
the improvements we want.


I just wanted to share with you an alternative suggestion we received:

Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: Bug#1105759: git-debpush upstream tag confusion"):
> On Jun 20, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > This might involve a dependency on [gbp-config]
>
> Agreed. But gpb.conf is a simple ini-style file, and there are
> plenty of Perl modules which can parse them so it may be simple
> enough to just reimplement this part.

I guess you think it would be better for us to Depend on a split-out
gbp-config, than to reimplement the parsing using some INI file
reader (in a Perl library maybe).

So, I think you would recommend against that alternative
reimplementation approach.  Am I right about that?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

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

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