On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:34:40PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/12/13 03:34, SamLT wrote:
William Giokas 1007380 at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:56:18 EST 2013
<...snip...> Uwe Koloska said "local clones are cheap", (https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-April/022955.html ) while I agree it's fast it also copies a whole bunch of files which won't be used for the build (namely the .git directory). Although, this does not feel right(to me), I cannot find any tangible reason other that premature EOL of our beloved SSD *sick*.
I think hardlinks are used a lot by git here (provided SRCDEST is on the same partition).
Anyway, why not just doing something like this for step 2: cd $git archive --format=tar --prefix=$pkgname/ . | tar xf - -C $srcdir
(or even a shallow clone)
Because we do the branch/tag/commit checkout after we create the $srcdir copy.
<...snip...> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:04:38AM +0100, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 PM, SamLT <samuel.lethiec@intelunix.fr> wrote:
Anyway, why not just doing something like this for step 2: cd $git archive --format=tar --prefix=$pkgname/ . | tar xf - -C $srcdir
(or even a shallow clone)
To expand the existing options, there's also git clone --shared but that is potentially dangerous.
I'm still convinced that cloning the repository is a good thing, because it's fast, it uses hard links so it actually doesn't write that much and it allows easy updates.
I had completely forgotten about git handling nicely local clones! I see no reason to discuss this anymore! Thank you both! sam
Lukas