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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1250853

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

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,
On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 01:36:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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?

Works as well but that means you'd have to track any possible changes in
the format - it's not supposed to change much but `gbp-config` would
know about it automatically.

Cheers,
 -- Guido

> 
> 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