Re: [gentoo-dev] Usages of CVS $Header$ keyword in ebuilds - use cases wanted

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
> On 27-08-2008 10:28:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
>> > unless there is a very good reason to remove it.
>> As I wrote in the other thread, my reason for asking is that it's one of
>> the things that doesn't have clear mapping in the Git world. As a side
>> benefit, getting rid of it also makes the double-commit mess go away.
>
> For who is it a mess?  Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone
> should be using it, right?  As the one who personally played with the
> code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is
> necessary, I think it's mostly a repoman internal problem.  The commit
> script problems put aside.

So you are saying we should do what?

precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves
take the checksums
generate the manifest
revert the $header$ change
then commit the ebuild and manifest at once

?

The only reason we have double commits right now is that the $header$
replacement is done by cvs at commit time so if we don't do two
commits the checksums all break due to the substitution..how is that
repoman's fault?

>
>> For your use case, it should be possible to just ask Git for updates to
>> the given directory, and apply those to your own tree.
>
> Another VCS is another story.  If we're switching, it would be nice if
> the notion of overlays shadowing the main tree would be taken into
> account.  Especially since I don't think Prefix will "merge" any time
> soon, but we are plagued by the thing called "growth".
>
>
> --
> Fabian Groffen
> Gentoo on a different level
>
>