On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Xavier<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Benjamin > Richter<[email protected]> 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
