FS#14508 - [git] 1.6.2.4-1 should not install /usr/share/gitweb/gitweb.perl

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Peter Simons (peti) - Thursday, 30 April 2009, 10:20 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Saturday, 06 June 2009, 01:18 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

The build process generates "gitweb.cgi" from "gitweb.perl", meaning that gitweb.perl should not be installed in /usr/share/gitweb.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Saturday, 06 June 2009, 01:18 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  Fixed in git 1.6.3.2-1
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Saturday, 02 May 2009, 00:39 GMT
So what is your proposed solution? The build process doesn't generate a thing in the gitweb directory unless you tell it to, and we can't very well customize gitweb for every end users config.

See what the PKGBUILD does here:
http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/git/trunk/PKGBUILD?revision=36192&view=markup
Comment by Peter Simons (peti) - Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 08:56 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
My proposed solution is to NOT install the "gitweb.perl" script. It is useless and redundant in the presence of "gitweb.cgi". The PKGBUILD copies the entire "gitweb" directory into $pkgdir. That's a mistake. Instead, please install only the relevant files, namely: git-favicon.png, git-logo.png, gitweb.cgi, and gitweb.css. The file "gitweb.perl" is not one of them.

Also, please note that the build process doesn't "customize gitweb for every end users config", nor is anybody expecting that the PKGBUILD does that. All I'm suggesting is that the PKGBUILD stops doing something, i.e. copying build sources into the installation.

By the way, I find it odd that you ask me a question concerning the bug report, but then close the bug before I even had a chance to respond.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 09:00 GMT
Reopened in favour of the duplicate ( FS#14705 ).

Loading...