Héctor Orón Martínez writes ("Bug#906317: dgit: consider demoting
git-buildpackage to recommends"):
> Package: dgit
> Version: 6.6
> Severity: wishlist
> User: [email protected]
> Usertags: needed-by-DSA-Team
...
> Please, consider demoting `git-buildpackage` to a recommends, since `dgit`
> does not "seem" to depend on it.
As well as the obvious gbp-build operations, dgit does depend on
gbp pq for importing `3.0 (quilt)' format source packages.
That would be needed during during dgit push if the last upload wasn't
done with dgit, which would be not uncommon. Also, without gbp pq,
dgit clone of most packages would fail.
So I'm inclined to think that the subset of dgit's functionality which
is useable without gbp pq is too small for your use case (and too
small to make it sensible to demote this depends). But I'm happy to
talk about it some more.
> For some background, I would like to enable Debian porterbox users
> to be able to run `dgit push`,
Running dgit push directly on a porterbox would involve making the pgp
key availabe to the porterbox. That doesn't seem wise. I guess you
mean `dgit rpush', which would be well suited to this use case ?
(Since dgit rpush does most of the work on the `remote' machine, in
this case the porterbox, I don't think that has any implications for
the gbp pq dependency.)
> At the moment `dgit` is installed in porterboxes,
Thank you.
> however it drags in `git-buildpackage` which is very much a concern
> to have it installed there.
What is the concern with git-buildpackage ? I understand that it's a
big piece of software but it contains many important tools for
managing many styles of Debian packaging git branch. I wasn't aware
that it had significant functionality of a kind that would be
undesirable on a porterbox.
For example, if a porter chose to deal with a gbp pq patches-unapplied
tree from salsa, rather than a dsc import from dgit, they would find
that they would anyway need gbp pq to manipulate the patch stack and
to build the package on the porterbox.
> Could you please consider demoting such
> dependency to a recommends? Or alternatively provide a separated
> binary package providing `dgit push` functionality? (Since
> porterboxes run on stable and you agree with the report, consider
> making available such feature via stable-backports)
For the reasons I have given, I'm not sure that this would help.
Perhaps in the future gbp pq could be its own .deb, but I doubt we
would want to do that in stable.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
