| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:36:00 +0800 |
| 2 |
Ben <yngwin@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 12 March 2012 02:27, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT) |
| 6 |
> > Leho Kraav <leho@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> > |
| 10 |
> >> > Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are |
| 11 |
> >> > about 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This |
| 12 |
> >> > evaluates to 83 different packages. |
| 13 |
> >> > |
| 14 |
> >> > The problem with github is that it suffixes the tarballs with |
| 15 |
> >> > a complete git commit id. This means that the `S' variable |
| 16 |
> >> > in the ebuild needs to refer to a long hash changing randomly. |
| 17 |
> >> > Right now, the problem is handled in a number of ways: |
| 18 |
> >> > |
| 19 |
> >> > 1) (from app-admin/rudy) |
| 20 |
> >> > 2) (app-emacs/calfw and suggested solution for Sunrise) |
| 21 |
> >> > 3) (app-misc/bgrep) |
| 22 |
> >> > 4) (app-misc/tmux-mem-cpu-load) |
| 23 |
> >> > |
| 24 |
> >> > What I'd like to do is creating a small github.eclass, |
| 25 |
> >> > encapsulating a common, nice way of handling the S issue. I |
| 26 |
> >> > guess the best solution would be to git with something like 2) |
| 27 |
> >> > above, with the eclass providing github_src_unpack() for EAPIs |
| 28 |
> >> > 2+. |
| 29 |
> >> |
| 30 |
> >> What is the current situation with this one? Every once in a while |
| 31 |
> >> I run into a github ebuild I need to create and I am not really |
| 32 |
> >> sure what to do with it. |
| 33 |
> >> |
| 34 |
> >> Right now 2) seems like the safest approach. But did anything get |
| 35 |
> >> into EAPI? |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > You mean eclass? I submitted one for review but didn't get much of |
| 38 |
> > positive feedback on it. I'll commit it anyway soon, just let me |
| 39 |
> > double check and do some testing. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> +1 from me. I think it would be useful to have a standard way of |
| 42 |
> handling this. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Attaching my current conceptual eclass. I've tested it with github, |
| 45 |
gitweb and bitbucket. It won't work with gitorious but their snapshot |
| 46 |
download mechanism is broken anyway (they like to submit 'try again |
| 47 |
later' in plaintext). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Best regards, |
| 51 |
Michał Górny |
Archives