| 1 |
On 27-08-2008 11:57:30 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> > For who is it a mess? Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone |
| 3 |
> > should be using it, right? As the one who personally played with the |
| 4 |
> > code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is |
| 5 |
> > necessary, I think it's mostly a repoman internal problem. The commit |
| 6 |
> > script problems put aside. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So you are saying we should do what? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves |
| 11 |
> take the checksums |
| 12 |
> generate the manifest |
| 13 |
> revert the $header$ change |
| 14 |
> then commit the ebuild and manifest at once |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> ? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The only reason we have double commits right now is that the $header$ |
| 19 |
> replacement is done by cvs at commit time so if we don't do two |
| 20 |
> commits the checksums all break due to the substitution..how is that |
| 21 |
> repoman's fault? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's not. But I don't see the problem (apart from a "race condition" |
| 24 |
with rsync generation) with the two commits either. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Incidently the $Header: $ "feature" just helps me a lot at the moment to |
| 27 |
keep the Prefix tree up-to-date. Hence, I'm against switching them off |
| 28 |
or removing them as long as we use CVS for gentoo-x86. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 33 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives