Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> One more thing: non-specs and template specs need to be moved to some
> other place (scripts/ and templates/ dirs? mirrors and
> additional-md5sums are used by scripts, so they can be together with
> scripts).
>
>
Call it bin/ and templates/? It's a good change.
Aria
On 5/15/07, Jakub Bogusz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One more disadvantage: more work when adding new package (1 or 3 mkdirs
> + cvs adds depending on layout - is it going to be
> package/{package.spec,package*.patch} or
> package/{SPECS/package.spec,SOURCES/package*.patch} ?
SOURCES shoud stay,
One more thing: non-specs and template specs need to be moved to some
other place (scripts/ and templates/ dirs? mirrors and
additional-md5sums are used by scripts, so they can be together with
scripts).
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-dev
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 08:20:09PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
>
> others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change
> the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package,
1. I hate common SOURCES (and removing these files I don't need anymore).
For now I'm crea
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:28:52PM +0100, wrobell wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:58:06PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> [...]
> > What are the problems? The so called "problems" are the rare
> > situations where you need to grep through ALL the spec files. This
> > could easily be solved by a
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 06:07:32PM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> Dnia poniedziałek, 14 maja 2007, Jan Rekorajski napisał:
> > That's what I did, just the other way, files copied to packages/* and
> > symlinked to SPECS/ and SOURCES/. Easy to make the script do it the
> > other way.
>
> Do it the o
Dnia poniedziałek, 14 maja 2007, Mariusz Mazur napisał:
> Easy. Most of the content of sources is in the form %name-something. Let
> the script simply match the %name part (trying to match it from the longest
> possible string) with a package named like that. If it's there, that's the
> package, if
Dnia poniedziałek, 14 maja 2007, Jan Rekorajski napisał:
> That's what I did, just the other way, files copied to packages/* and
> symlinked to SPECS/ and SOURCES/. Easy to make the script do it the
> other way.
Do it the other way then. Until we figure out a permanent packages/*
structure, the o
Dnia niedziela, 13 maja 2007, Jan Rekorajski napisał:
> EN:
>
> We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
> others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change
> the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package,
> because any other CMS w
On 5/14/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14-05-2007 01:05]:
> > Why worse?
> To avoid making up reasons (and repeating ourselves about excessive
> metadata): I would find this structure more annoying. Longer paths,
> the need for mkdir.
Is th
On 5/13/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13-05-2007 21:58]:
> > Why?
> Why what?
Why do you believe all RCS tools suck?
> > What are the problems?
> Off the top of my head:
> - excessive metadata (CVS/Entries is just a few dozen bytes per f
On 5/13/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13-05-2007 20:20]:
> > We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
> All version control systems suck. CVS just sucks least for this kind of
> repository.
Why?
> > others. Bu
On 5/13/07, Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
> others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change
> the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package,
> because any other CMS won't han
Dnia niedziela, 13 maja 2007, Jan Rekorajski napisał:
> EN:
>
[...]
> would SVN repo look like - a ~milion directories, and GIT just doesn't
Wouldn't CVS have milion dirs too?
Maybe the
/dir-per-package/...?
or /dir-per-package/...?
should be considered?
[...]
> Any thoughts? Comments?
Is th
EN:
We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for
others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change
the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package,
because any other CMS won't handle such layout (you can imagine how
would SVN repo look
15 matches
Mail list logo
