Source: git-buildpackage X-debbugs-cc: Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it>, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Severity: wishlist Control: block 1105759 by -1
Hello, On Sat 21 Jun 2025 at 10:52am +02, Guido Günther wrote: > 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. Great, thanks! Turning this into a blocking bug for tracking. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
