On 27-08-2008 11:57:30 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > For who is it a mess? Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone > > should be using it, right? As the one who personally played with the > > code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is > > necessary, I think it's mostly a repoman internal problem. The commit > > script problems put aside. > > So you are saying we should do what? > > precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves > take the checksums > generate the manifest > revert the $header$ change > then commit the ebuild and manifest at once > > ? > > The only reason we have double commits right now is that the $header$ > replacement is done by cvs at commit time so if we don't do two > commits the checksums all break due to the substitution..how is that > repoman's fault?
It's not. But I don't see the problem (apart from a "race condition" with rsync generation) with the two commits either. Incidently the $Header: $ "feature" just helps me a lot at the moment to keep the Prefix tree up-to-date. Hence, I'm against switching them off or removing them as long as we use CVS for gentoo-x86. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
