1 |
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT) |
2 |
Leho Kraav <leho@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are |
7 |
> > about 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This evaluates |
8 |
> > to 83 different packages. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > The problem with github is that it suffixes the tarballs with |
11 |
> > a complete git commit id. This means that the `S' variable |
12 |
> > in the ebuild needs to refer to a long hash changing randomly. Right |
13 |
> > now, the problem is handled in a number of ways: |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > 1) (from app-admin/rudy) |
16 |
> > 2) (app-emacs/calfw and suggested solution for Sunrise) |
17 |
> > 3) (app-misc/bgrep) |
18 |
> > 4) (app-misc/tmux-mem-cpu-load) |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > What I'd like to do is creating a small github.eclass, encapsulating |
21 |
> > a common, nice way of handling the S issue. I guess the best |
22 |
> > solution would be to git with something like 2) above, with the |
23 |
> > eclass providing github_src_unpack() for EAPIs 2+. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> What is the current situation with this one? Every once in a while I |
26 |
> run into a github ebuild I need to create and I am not really sure |
27 |
> what to do with it. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Right now 2) seems like the safest approach. But did anything get |
30 |
> into EAPI? |
31 |
|
32 |
You mean eclass? I submitted one for review but didn't get much of |
33 |
positive feedback on it. I'll commit it anyway soon, just let me double |
34 |
check and do some testing. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Best regards, |
38 |
Michał Górny |