| 1 |
>>>>> "TC" == Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
TC> I explained multiple times already why bare checkouts are not |
| 4 |
TC> working in our case. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Wait a minute. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Not using bare clones in DISTDIR is completely unacceptable here. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It is bad enough to have to use non-bare for repos which have |
| 11 |
submodules. Doing so for all is b0rked. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
TC> I don't get why you guys keep repeating it like in the loop. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I didn't notice that bug until you just pointed it out. Nor did I see |
| 16 |
any of the explanations you mention above. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
TC> (I also asked for some implementation where the bare would be possible |
| 19 |
TC> with submodules stored in distdir, yet nobody said it is possible) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
TC> So live with it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I cannot. It makes the eclass useless. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I have almost 2 gigs of bare repo in distdirs/git-src. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
A forced re-download of all of that is just not possible! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The existing distdir clones *MUST* continue to work. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
My applogies for not having looked for this kind of breakage in the new |
| 32 |
eclass before now. The current git eclass finally got the submodules- |
| 33 |
vs-normal stuff worked out some time ago; the possibility of going |
| 34 |
backwards never occurred to me.... ☹ |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
As someone who makes heavy use of live ebuilds, someone who will be |
| 37 |
directly and severely affected by such a change, I have to beg you |
| 38 |
to keep the current logic for submodule-less repos. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
P.S. The kind of clone used in distdir is irrelevant to the |
| 41 |
fact that git-clone should be used to populate $S. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-JimC |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |
Archives