| 1 |
On 12 March 2012 02:27, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT) |
| 3 |
> Leho Kraav <leho@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Monday, May 30, 2011 9:30:02 AM UTC+3, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > Right now, a quick 'grep -l github.*tarball' shows that there are |
| 8 |
>> > about 147 ebuilds in portage using github snapshots. This evaluates |
| 9 |
>> > to 83 different packages. |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > The problem with github is that it suffixes the tarballs with |
| 12 |
>> > a complete git commit id. This means that the `S' variable |
| 13 |
>> > in the ebuild needs to refer to a long hash changing randomly. Right |
| 14 |
>> > now, the problem is handled in a number of ways: |
| 15 |
>> > |
| 16 |
>> > 1) (from app-admin/rudy) |
| 17 |
>> > 2) (app-emacs/calfw and suggested solution for Sunrise) |
| 18 |
>> > 3) (app-misc/bgrep) |
| 19 |
>> > 4) (app-misc/tmux-mem-cpu-load) |
| 20 |
>> > |
| 21 |
>> > What I'd like to do is creating a small github.eclass, encapsulating |
| 22 |
>> > a common, nice way of handling the S issue. I guess the best |
| 23 |
>> > solution would be to git with something like 2) above, with the |
| 24 |
>> > eclass providing github_src_unpack() for EAPIs 2+. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> What is the current situation with this one? Every once in a while I |
| 27 |
>> run into a github ebuild I need to create and I am not really sure |
| 28 |
>> what to do with it. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> Right now 2) seems like the safest approach. But did anything get |
| 31 |
>> into EAPI? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> You mean eclass? I submitted one for review but didn't get much of |
| 34 |
> positive feedback on it. I'll commit it anyway soon, just let me double |
| 35 |
> check and do some testing. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
+1 from me. I think it would be useful to have a standard way of handling this. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Cheers, |
| 40 |
Ben | yngwin |
Archives