Am 05.11.2012 13:20, schrieb Gavin Pryke: > I have space on my server with enough bandwidth for hosting snapshots too but > I thought it would be better to have everything on tuxfamily rather than > scattered around on different servers. No offense Jannis because this really > is much appreciated!
No offence taken here :) I just remembered s.o. mentioning in a mail that space (was it webspace or space for the repository?) was getting sparse on tuxfamily. > I say this because have already changed or removed quite a few ebuilds where > SRI_URI points to files that have been moved or deleted or a tarball that has > been modified compared to official source, that's what patches are for! > Snapshots for our overlay really wouldn't take that much space I think if the > unreferenced files are cleaned out regularly. > I'm getting really tired of trying to maintain live ebuilds now purely > because > I don't have time for fiddling with source layout changes when I want > software > to just work. At least with a snapshot one can come to it and update as time > permits. It would be different if there were dedicated maintainers for every > package watching for changes but how many of the ~15 devs with commit access > to this overlay are active at any one time? Not many when we have ~374 > packages! > For me snapshots are the only way forward. I'd rather compile a source > checkout manually because it's easier than fiddling with live ebuilds that > are > broken often. In contrast I am happy to commit any ebuild that references a > tarball in SRC_URI because less time is spent digging through source trying > to > find what changed. This is where I see it getting more difficult for ebuild writers/maintainers. A live-ebuild can be written, tested and submitted easily since everyone here has internet-access and can checkout any repository. Snapshots (tar-archives in this case) must be created, stored and uploaded (except for some few that are small enough to be attached to an email but I wouldn't want to send such an mail to the mailing list). Without haveing direct SVN write access, it's quite some work to "submit" a snapshot-based ebuild. Another way would be to specify ESVN_REVISION or EGIT_COMMIT as mentioned by Dominique. That would be some kind of "snapshot" but w/o tar-archive but from the official repository. I don't have a problem submitting ebuilds that way but I personally prefer real "live" (aka HEAD/trunk) ebuilds. Also hybrid ebuilds are possible that check the version number of the ebuild's filename and do a trunk-checkout if version is "9999" and a specific (tested) revision/commit otherwise.
