From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYQVh-00014T-0z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:16:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9D90E0267; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amun.cheops.ods.org (amun.cheops.ods.org [82.95.138.191]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7825BE0278 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tefnut.cheops.ods.org ([2001:888:1022:0:211:24ff:fe37:e46e] helo=gentoo.org) by amun.cheops.ods.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KYQVd-0000Qs-Dj for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:16:50 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:16:49 +0200 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Usages of CVS $Header$ keyword in ebuilds - use cases wanted Message-ID: <20080827191649.GK27338@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20080826204036.GE30560@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <20080826154107.373c7095@xdune.lan> <20080827163557.GH27338@gentoo.org> <20080827172857.GK30560@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <20080827173802.GI27338@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (Darwin 8.11.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.2) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Content-Scanned: by amun.cheops.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: 17502439-7901-4167-8830-868398bd0c81 X-Archives-Hash: 9c1105fb3d1f587db1115727938b3395 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