| 1 |
Bernd Steinhauser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Doug Klima schrieb: |
| 3 |
>>> 2) ESVN_OFFLINE which disables svn up. |
| 4 |
>> Isn't this a bit of a hack? The point is for it to run svn up. Now |
| 5 |
>> I've added support in a local refactor that I had started today that |
| 6 |
>> if the working copy's revision matches the requested revision, that no |
| 7 |
>> svn up is performed. Obviously the situation when you have a "live" |
| 8 |
>> SVN ebuild would still result in an svn up, but then again "live" SVN |
| 9 |
>> ebuilds are frowned upon and if the person is trying to emerge a |
| 10 |
>> "live" SVN ebuild I would expect them to always get the latest version. |
| 11 |
> What, if |
| 12 |
> - the server containing the repository doesn't respond? |
| 13 |
> - there is currently no connection to update but you need to remerge |
| 14 |
> because of new useflags added (or similar)? |
| 15 |
> In both cases with a normal merge it will die when trying to do svn up. |
| 16 |
> Of course with 1) you could hack around |
| 17 |
> that and specify the last revision in the repository, which btw. did a |
| 18 |
> svn up, too, but this was changed today. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Regards, |
| 21 |
> Bernd |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I actually re-evaluated this after I sent that e-mail and changed it to |
| 24 |
behave like cvs.eclass. Basically if you set ESVN_REPO_URI=offline, then |
| 25 |
it'll assume you've got the revision you already want. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Doug Klima <cardoe@g.o> |
| 29 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives