Re: [gentoo-dev] Usages of CVS $Header$ keyword in ebuilds - use cases wanted

[Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org>]

On 27-08-2008 11:57:30 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > For who is it a mess?  Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone
> > should be using it, right?  As the one who personally played with the
> > code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is
> > necessary, I think it's mostly a repoman internal problem.  The commit
> > script problems put aside.
> 
> So you are saying we should do what?
> 
> precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves
> take the checksums
> generate the manifest
> revert the $header$ change
> then commit the ebuild and manifest at once
> 
> ?
> 
> The only reason we have double commits right now is that the $header$
> replacement is done by cvs at commit time so if we don't do two
> commits the checksums all break due to the substitution..how is that
> repoman's fault?

It's not.  But I don't see the problem (apart from a "race condition"
with rsync generation) with the two commits either.

Incidently the $Header: $ "feature" just helps me a lot at the moment to
keep the Prefix tree up-to-date.  Hence, I'm against switching them off
or removing them as long as we use CVS for gentoo-x86.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level