[pacman-dev] Inconsistency of makepkg's activities in devel_check()

[Dan McGee]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Xavier<shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Benjamin
> Richter<webmaster at 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()...

-Dan