| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:33 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 11:29 +0000, Samuel Bernardo wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Same question for unpack context when using directly the source |
| 6 |
> > repository with vcs functions. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> VCS ebuilds generally suck, for multiple reasons. We allow users to use |
| 9 |
> them but with minimal support. However, e.g. git-r3 supports local |
| 10 |
> mirrors to resolve some problems. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Any guides on using that from an ebuild maintenance standpoint? The |
| 14 |
eclass docs make it appear more for local sysadmin use vs as a way to |
| 15 |
distribute things, but I could be reading into it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Usually my solution to VCS ebuilds when that is all upstream supports |
| 18 |
is to just create my own github mirror of the repo, tag an appropriate |
| 19 |
commit, and then fetch the resulting tarball directly as a non-VCS |
| 20 |
ebuild. Essentially I end up running my own private fork of upstream. |
| 21 |
At least, this is what I do for actual releases that upstream can't be |
| 22 |
bothered to release properly - for a live -9999 VCS ebuild I just |
| 23 |
point to upstream. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't believe Gentoo has any kind of recommended/standardized |
| 26 |
solution for this, but having ebuilds point to my own private fork of |
| 27 |
things obviously is non-ideal. However, I think it is still more |
| 28 |
transparent than just bundling up a tarball manually and sticking it |
| 29 |
in my devspace since at least with my forked repo everybody can see |
| 30 |
where it came from and what state it is in, and of course it is easier |
| 31 |
to maintain. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If there is a more preferred way of doing this I'd be interested to |
| 34 |
hear about it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives