On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:19:41AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:45:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Monday 05 June 2006 02:07, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > Some gnustep stuff inherits cvs, but uses -D in the cvs options to > > > > always download exactly the same thing. > > > > > > then arent you just adding overhead to the poor gnustep cvs servers ? > > > why not > > > roll a cvs snapshot tarball and distro via our mirrors > > > > Yeah, that'd probably be a better idea, but even if the current ebuilds > > are less than perfect, it seems like a valid use of the eclass to me, so > > making repoman error out is a bad idea, I think. A warning would be > > useful, though. > > 'Cept standards for ebuilds is typically http/https/ftp access for > fetching files- forcing pserver means people behind firewalls are > screwed... which is why non standard uri that is generally accessible > to users must be http/https/ftp, and if they aren't, upload the file > to the mirrors. > > Ebuilds might work, don't think they qualify as valid though- assume > initially it was easier to just copy the ebuild and lock the date; > doesn't make it valid though. :)
I now checked: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html If it's explained how to do it in the docs, I consider it valid, regardless of how bad an idea it may be. > Should be an error imo- there isn't any real requirement for a > cvs/git/darcs/subversion eclass consumer to be visible really. > ~harring Are you hoping for even ~arch cvs ebuilds to cause a repoman error? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
