On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Tai-Lin Chu <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...what are you trying to test? Probably trying to replicate what makepkg does to show you why cp doesn't work. > mkdir -p /tmp/dumb/ > pushd /tmp/dumb/ > echo "==> Cloning into a bare repository..." > git clone --verbose git://github.com/falconindy/cower.git barerepo > echo "==> Creating copy of this repo using cp..." > cp -r -a /tmp/dumb/barerepo /tmp/dumb/barecp > echo "==> Done" > echo "==> Creating copy of this repo using git clone..." > git clone --verbose /tmp/dumb/barerepo barerepocopy > echo "==> Done" > > test this. of course --bare will give you different result... > And this is what makepkg uses so that the base repo takes up less space on disk and the tree doesn't need to be calculated. > ok here is a normal process that i mentioned: > > git clone --depth 1 git://github.com/falconindy/cower.git test > cp -a -r test test2 > // build with test2 > rm -rf test2 Please go back and search the pacman-dev list for why we aren't doing this -- it's clear that you posted the suggestion here before doing any amount of investigation into this. You aren't the first to suggest this, and you unfortunately won't be the last. > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM, William Giokas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0700, Tai-Lin Chu wrote: > >> >Doesn't matter. cp does nothing with checksums, whereas git will > >> >preserve every byte, and it literally can't go bad (or if it does on > the > >> >extremely off chance, it will simply stop the build). Maybe rsync, you > >> >say? That still isn't cryptographically secure. Using git, you can > >> >guarantee that the files you are building from are exactly the same as > >> >anyone else, which is what we want with makepkg. > >> > >> cp and git clone are exactly the same. see cp source code, and if the > >> file is corrupted, then you have even bigger problems. > >> In general very not likely. (i mean if this happen, 1. kernel has > >> problem 2. your disk goes bad) > >> stackoverflow confirmed the result. > >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/852561/is-it-safe-to-use-a-copied-git-repo > >> > >> >There's minimal point to this. As I've said numerous times, it does not > >> >allow you to clone the shallow bare repo, which is what makepkg gets > >> >when it fetches git sources. > >> > >> aren't we talking about cp....? > > > > Here, run this quick script and see what you can do with it: > > > > #!/bin/bash > > mkdir -p /tmp/dumb/ > > pushd /tmp/dumb/ > > echo "==> Cloning into a bare repository..." > > git clone --verbose --bare git://github.com/falconindy/cower.gitbarerepo > > echo "==> Creating copy of this repo using cp..." > > cp -r -a /tmp/dumb/barerepo /tmp/dumb/barecp > > echo "==> Done" > > echo "==> Creating copy of this repo using git clone..." > > git clone --verbose /tmp/dumb/barerepo barerepocopy > > echo "==> Done" > > > > If you look at the one generated by the 'cp' command you will see that > > it is totally missing the actual files, and only contains (duh) the bare > > repository files. This is utterly worthless for building, and also, if > > there is disk failure, makepkg will still try to build. > > > > Looking into the one generated by the git clone, you'll see that it has > > all of the correct files and can actually be built. > > > >> > >> >If they're all doing it at the same time, cloning fresh repositories, > >> >then yes. that may be an issue on some large projects with very > terrible > >> >servers. Also, if you're worried about server load, mirror the > >> >repository yourself so people can gake the load off of the host server. > >> >This is the joy of a DVCS. > >> > >> I dont have a server, and this is not practical. certainly using git > >> pkgbuild with shallow clone is far easier than what you mentioned. > > > > Not at all. See the script above. > > > > !next > > -- > > William Giokas | KaiSforza > > GnuPG Key: 0x73CD09CF > > Fingerprint: F73F 50EF BBE2 9846 8306 E6B8 6902 06D8 73CD 09CF >
