| 1 |
On 03/11/2012 10:25 AM, Leho Kraav wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are about |
| 5 |
>> 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This evaluates to 83 |
| 6 |
>> different packages. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> The problem with github is that it suffixes the tarballs with |
| 9 |
>> a complete git commit id. This means that the `S' variable |
| 10 |
>> in the ebuild needs to refer to a long hash changing randomly. Right |
| 11 |
>> now, the problem is handled in a number of ways: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> 1) (from app-admin/rudy) |
| 14 |
>> 2) (app-emacs/calfw and suggested solution for Sunrise) |
| 15 |
>> 3) (app-misc/bgrep) |
| 16 |
>> 4) (app-misc/tmux-mem-cpu-load) |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> What I'd like to do is creating a small github.eclass, encapsulating |
| 19 |
>> a common, nice way of handling the S issue. I guess the best solution |
| 20 |
>> would be to git with something like 2) above, with the eclass providing |
| 21 |
>> github_src_unpack() for EAPIs 2+. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What is the current situation with this one? Every once in a while I run into a github ebuild I need to create and I am not really sure what to do with it. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Right now 2) seems like the safest approach. But did anything get into EAPI? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
No, there's no EAPI extension for that yet, and no bug filed for it here: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174380 |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives