Hi Aymeric, Aymeric Agon-Rambosson <aymeric.a...@yandex.com> writes:
> Hello team, > > As you may have noticed, Mr. Kimura has opened bug report 1086758, > in which he claims that elpa-magit should still depend on > elpa-git-commit (which it does not anymore, since 4.1.2-1). > > He is right, of course. The reason dh-elpa stopped adding this > dependency to elpa-git-commit is due to upstream commit c170fcf3 > (https://github.com/magit/magit/commit/c170fcf39918e567948fec43b70a592765ed5fe7). > > Since this commit, git-commit is distributed by upstream as part > of magit, which means several things : > - The Package-Version and Package-Requires headers of git-commit > have disappeared. This is what prompted me to push commit > a011f2f1, which in retrospect, does not solve anything (you will > notice that many of the dependencies of elpa-git-commit have > disappeared in sid, which is wrong). > - One line of the Package-Requires header of magit has disappeared > as well (the one referencing git-commit), which is why the bug > 1086758 appeared. > > Upstream now intends to always distribute magit and git-commit > together. As Mr. Kimura noticed, magit depends on git-commit. But > since c170fcf3, the reverse is also true. So we must make sure > that magit and git-commit are installed, removed and upgraded at > the same time. > > I see two solutions for this, which I wanted to get you opinion on > before getting started : > - Remove the binary package elpa-git-commit, and distribute the > lisp/git-commit.el file as part of elpa-magit. > - Keep the binary package elpa-git-commit, and add a circular > dependency between it and elpa-magit (are circular dependencies > allowed at all ?). > > The second solution is easier, and can be reverted if upstream > decides to revert c170fcf3 somewhere down the road. > > I've cced Barak and Matteo, who have made the latest uploads, but > the questions (particularly what is proper regarding circular > dependencies) are directed to everyone. > > Best, > > Aymeric > I guess I should have used a separate branch + MR instead of pushing my commits implementing solution 1 directly (implying I'm voting for it). Would still like to see the outcome of this discussion. Please also feel free to revert my commits if solution 2 is preferred. -- Regards, Xiyue Deng
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
