On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:34:40PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 18/12/13 03:34, SamLT wrote: > >> William Giokas 1007380 at gmail.com > >> Tue Dec 10 14:56:18 EST 2013 > >> <...snip...> > > Uwe Koloska said "local clones are cheap", > > (https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-April/022955.html > > ) while I agree it's fast it also copies a whole bunch of files which > > won't be used for the build (namely the .git directory). > > Although, this does not feel right(to me), I cannot find any tangible > > reason other that premature EOL of our beloved SSD *sick*. > > I think hardlinks are used a lot by git here (provided SRCDEST is on the > same partition). > > > Anyway, why not just doing something like this for step 2: > > cd $git archive --format=tar --prefix=$pkgname/ . | tar xf - -C $srcdir > > > > (or even a shallow clone) > > > > Because we do the branch/tag/commit checkout after we create the $srcdir > copy. >
<...snip...> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:04:38AM +0100, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 PM, SamLT <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anyway, why not just doing something like this for step 2: > > cd $git archive --format=tar --prefix=$pkgname/ . | tar xf - -C $srcdir > > > > (or even a shallow clone) > > To expand the existing options, there's also > git clone --shared > but that is potentially dangerous. > > I'm still convinced that cloning the repository is a good thing, > because it's fast, it uses hard links so it actually doesn't write > that much and it allows easy updates. > I had completely forgotten about git handling nicely local clones! I see no reason to discuss this anymore! Thank you both! sam > Lukas >
