Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 01:27:18
Message-Id: 20150812182706.7187bac7.dolsen@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore by Alan McKinnon
1 On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:22:34 +0200
2 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On 13/08/2015 00:21, James Le Cuirot wrote:
5 > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:11:45 +0200
6 > > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:
7 > >
8 > >> On 12/08/2015 23:29, James Le Cuirot wrote:
9 > >>> Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org> writes:
10 > >>>>
11 > >>>> On 10 Aug 2015 09:17, Michał Górny wrote:
12 > >>>>> Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 02:42:21 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
13 > >>>>>> On 10 Aug 2015 08:28, Justin (jlec) wrote:
14 > >>>>>>> I like to propose to add the md5-cache into it. Which other
15 > >>>>>>> files are of interest?
16 > >>>>>>
17 > >>>>>> /distfiles/
18 > >>>>>> /local/
19 > >>>>>> /packages/
20 > >>>>>
21 > >>>>> Those directories should not be ignored. Those should not exist
22 > >>>>> for a long time.
23 > >>>>
24 > >>>> there's no reason people can't use these on their own system.
25 > >>>> there's no reason they should be added to the git repo which
26 > >>>> means, if a user opted to utilize them, they should be ignored.
27 > >>>
28 > >>> I agree and I'm not sure what mgorny is basing his statement on
29 > >>> anyway. Apart from /local/, which I forget the purpose of, the
30 > >>> default locations for DISTDIR and PKGDIR still seem to
31 > >>> be /usr/portage/distfiles and /usr/portage/packages. I must admit
32 > >>> that I'm struggling to find the logic for this in Portage but
33 > >>> those are the defaults nonetheless. So why would they not exist?
34 > >>> I'm certainly using them here and I would like to see them
35 > >>> in .gitignore.
36 > >>
37 > >> /usr/portage/local was the original location for the user's own
38 > >> personal ebuild space - an "overlay" if you will.
39 > >> /usr/portage/distfiles and /usr/portage/packages are there because
40 > >> that's where ports has put them for decades, and no-one has gotten
41 > >> around to changing it in portage yet. FreeBSD defines the use
42 > >> of /usr very differently to what Linux users are used to.
43 > >>
44 > >> Those dirs really should be in /var/portage, and the user's overlay
45 > >> has no business being under main tree itself
46 > >
47 > > I didn't say they were the most appropriate locations and I agree
48 > > that /var/portage is best but that doesn't change the fact that they
49 > > are still the defaults. :)
50 > >
51 >
52 > Indeed. And it's equally true they should be git ignored.
53 >
54 >
55 >
56 >
57
58 Two things...
59
60 1) /var/portage is ABSOLUTELY the wrong name. with teh move which
61 should happen soon, it will be named gentoo just like the repo name.
62 The final location path is not yet 100% set and will not likely come to
63 any agreement amongst the populous. It hasn't yet ;) But is will end
64 up somewhere in /var/.../repos/gentoo most likely. The MAIN reason, is
65 there is often too much confusion between portage the package manager
66 and portage the "gentoo" ebuild tree. So to follow the overlay naming
67 rules for inclusion in the repositories.xml file, the directory name
68 must be the same as the repo name.
69
70 2) There is another alternate location that you can define files to
71 ignore locally without having to commit them to .gitignore.
72 Consider .gitignore a global setting. There is another setting
73 inside .git/info/exclude which is a local config file that will persist
74 and not be affected by pulls.
75
76 So please use that for local exclusions you want to add and not try to
77 force them into a global .gitignore which is part of the repo.
78 Something that seems to be hotly debated. ;)
79
80
81 --
82 Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] .gitignore Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>