| 1 |
On Sunday 17 April 2005 02:07, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 2 |
> Francesco Riosa wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Why do you semply add a "cat-ego/pack-cvs/pack-cvs.ebuild" near |
| 4 |
> > "cat-ego/pack/pack.ebuild" without get bothered with virtual and similar |
| 5 |
> > you can simply unmerge and remerge the brother package. |
| 6 |
> > There are many examples of merging from cvs in portage tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Portage doesn't contain many cvs ebuilds. Writing one might not be that |
| 9 |
> much hassle, but why should I have to? We already have functional ebuilds |
| 10 |
> to build that particular package, and I have some slightly newer source |
| 11 |
> code (e.g. in my homedir) that I want it to build instead. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If I did write a cvs ebuild, it would check out the sources *again* from |
| 14 |
> CVS, into /usr/portage/distfiles (I guess...). This is redundant and will |
| 15 |
> take quite a bit of time for larger packages. While this not that much of a |
| 16 |
> problem, one of my motives behind this is that I want to improve |
| 17 |
> productivity. Writing an ebuild *again* which checks out the sources |
| 18 |
> *again* doesn't really go in this direction. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
My approach to this problem is most of the time to do the first steps on the |
| 21 |
cvs tree (make -f Makefile.cvs) to create the configure script. Then pack |
| 22 |
this up in a tarbal. Copy the old ebuild to my overlay, with a new name (or |
| 23 |
revision in the -r990 -r999 range). Change the source location in the new |
| 24 |
ebuild. Digest the stuff. And emerge it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 32 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives