Dan McGee wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Xavier<shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Benjamin Richter<webmaster@waldteufel-online.net> wrote:
Hello developers. :-)
I noticed that makepkg handles Mercurial repositories differently from CVS/SVN/Bazaar/etc. With the others, $newpkgver is either computed using $(date ...) or retrieved from the online repository and the PKGBUILD is responsible for retrieving the contents as it is demonstrated here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_CVS_%6_SVN_PKGBUILD_guidelines.
Only with hg the repository is automatically cloned, pulled and updated:
I noticed this inconsistency just recently looking at makepkg code, and I don't like it either. I quickly looked at your proposed solutions and I am not convinced (or maybe the first one a) ).
My suggestions : 1) cloning in all cases (like a) ) one big? disadvantage is that all existing scm PKGBUILDs will have to be converted and I wonder if this method might be too restrictive in some cases, where someone want to clone a repo in a specific way.
Someone just proposed a patch to actually make GIT more like Hg (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15895). I'm not a fan of needing a full clone to get a version, but we could make it a bit more structured and make a specific function like fetch() fire before we get a version number? We already have build() and package()...
And likely check() in the future... (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15145). Adding a fetch() function would allow us to easily fix FS#13727 (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13727), where devel_update() is run before checking makedepends. From experience, someone needs to provide a PKGBUILD prototype for us to discuss or this suggestion would go nowhere... Allan