Pacman

Historical bug tracker for the Pacman package manager.

The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues

This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
Tasklist

FS#16384 - Inconsistency of makepkg's activities in devel_check() for Mercurial

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Evgeny Burmentyev (virus_found) - Monday, 28 September 2009, 13:39 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 10 August 2012, 04:56 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category makepkg
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.3.0
Due in Version 4.1.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Initiated by Waldteufel in the forums http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=78150 , look there for more info and suggestions.

$newpkgver for a Mercurial PKGBUILD is computed in a very different way in comparison with other PKGBUILDS. A repository is cloned or pulled/updated before the current revision number check. I assume, initially it was a workaround, but now there must be a way of making this in more convenient way with increasing Mercurial releases? There is a part of makepkg script attached, to show the differences in $newpkgver behaviour.

STR:
1. Run makepkg on any Mercurial PKGBUILD (with _hgroot variable in it).
2. See the messages after "==> Determining latest hg revision...", makepkg pulls or clones the whole repository right now.
   makepkg_part (1.4 KiB)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Friday, 10 August 2012, 04:56 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  https://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.gi t/commit/?id=024bc44a
Comment by Benjamin Richter (Waldteufel) - Monday, 28 September 2009, 16:38 GMT
See also this mailinglist thread: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-August/009174.html

Kind regards
Waldteufel
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Wednesday, 30 September 2009, 13:17 GMT
We have several problems with VCS support :
-  FS#13727 
-  FS#15895 
-  FS#7816 

I wonder if we could redesign the whole VCS system to take care of all these problems.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 30 September 2009, 13:25 GMT
I am happy for the whole thing to be overhauled. It is on my TODO list, just very low down...

Loading...