* Package name : gwh Version : 0.6.14 Upstream Contact: Roland Mas * URL : https://salsa.debian.org/lolando/gwh * License : GPL-3+ Programming Lang: bash Description : git-buildpackage workflow helper This is a wrapper script around git-buildpackage that helps automate common operations in a Debian package maintainer's workflow. To be fair, this should currently read "in *this* Debian package maintainer's workflow". It condenses years of automating things I do all day long, and as such it fits my own workflows, but I still think it could be useful to others. The main features are: - bind-mount machinery to make previously built packages available in the chroot, in order to build complex dependency chains even before the packages are available on standard mirrors; - a set of hooks that can perform common tasks after the build: run lintian, or piuparts, or autopkgtest, or try a second build in a row; - other hooks that allow running a shell before the build, or after the build if it succeeds, or if it fails; - a build-sign-upload-push sequence. I've been asked how opinionated this is. My initial answer was "not very", but I acknowledge this is a subjective opinion. The main assumption is pbuilder/cowbuilder (because of the hooks system), and debrelease for now (but that part could probably be made modular). Given the current discussions on -devel, I'd eventually like to sort of integrate DEP-14 and/or team policies wrt. branch naming. So far I'm still in the process of making sure that the scripts can actually be useful on somebody else's system; a few weeks ago they were still living in my ~/bin and ~/.config and so on, with some hardcoded paths and assumptions everywhere. I am of course open to contributions, and will gladly move the package to the /debian namespace on salsa to facilitate things if there's interest beyond myself.
Hello Roland, do you know the package debian-package-scripts and the corresponding reference "debian-package-book-en-US" (or in German: "debian-package-book-de") If you miss something there, please send a message and we can add it. Kind regards Mechtilde Am 19.05.25 um 11:30 schrieb Roland Mas:
Hello, Using just three letters for something highly Debian-specific doesn't seem the best for our users. Suggestions: gbp-gwh, gbp-wh, gbpwh.
I'm deeply concerned that the "surface area" of Debian packaging tools is too large already for new folk, and adding something like gwh into the archive makes that problem worse. I would really like to see an effort to improve gbp itself directly at least first. Have you tried to do that? From the README, I see IMHO, putting this in the archive is premature. I think most feedback on ITPs (like this) just goes into the void. Can I be explicit in asking you Roland, to withdraw this ITP, at least until you have exhausted options for improving gbp itself?
Agreed.
I did not look into gwh, but if there are good reasons not to modify gbp directly (such as the willingness to maintain a stable interface), maybe a better alternative is to design & develop an alternative to gbp (and then see how it gains traction or not). Lucas
Le 20/05/2025 à 12:07, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : Fair enough, although I'm hoping to make gwh good enough to encapsulate part of that surface area in one tool. I got in touch with Guido Guenther before sending this ITP, and he seemed to agree that gwh can only be implemented as a wrapper around gbp (mainly due to adherence to pbuilder hooks while gbp can be used with other builders). I wouldn't upload to the archive before that warning is gone :-) (Besides, it's almost gone, I just need to pick up the nerves to commit its removal). I'm also stabilizing the option names before pushing further. I've read all the feedback on this ITP, and will take it into account, including the renaming part. I'm uncomfortable with withdrawing it altogether, but I propose to sit on it for a few weeks, at least long enough to make the tool good enough to add real value to the archive. Then I'll restart a discussion on -devel, and if the consensus then is that gwh has no place in Debian I'll withdraw the ITP. How does that sound? Roland.
Do you mean gwh assumes pbuilder and doesn't support sbuild?
Right, it's even in the ITP. Well, then I guess (and hope) that it won't be used by a large percent of people, hopefully by the majority (I understand this is controversial but meh).
As someone who is one of the most vocal supporters of standardizing how we package things, I would like to say that I always worry when someone says, “Don’t package this new thing. The things we have are already good enough.” I worry that attitude hinders progress, mostly because it is hard to tell which things will end up being really useful over time. There are a number of teams that have already packaged scripts and wrappers that are useful for particular packaging workflows. An example is pkg-kde- tools, which includes pkgkde-symbolshelper. This ends up being crazy useful when dealing with symbols files, so much that I (and other people) use it for any package, not just KDE ones. https://qt-kde-team.pages.debian.net/symbolfiles.html I would be very sad if this hadn’t been packaged because someone said there shouldn’t be any more wrappers.