-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Portage doesn't contain many cvs ebuilds. Writing one might not be that much > hassle, but why should I have to? We already have functional ebuilds to build > that particular package, and I have some slightly newer source code (e.g. in > my homedir) that I want it to build instead. > > If I did write a cvs ebuild, it would check out the sources *again* from CVS, > into /usr/portage/distfiles (I guess...). This is redundant and will take > quite a bit of time for larger packages.
After an initial checkout, it does cvs up's to keep it up to date, so it would not be that much downloading. The source is kept in /usr/portage/distfiles/cvs-src. Also, if you planned on using a setup like this, there wouldn't really be a need to have the source in your home directory as well. While this not that much of a > problem, one of my motives behind this is that I want to improve productivity. > Writing an ebuild *again* which checks out the sources *again* doesn't really > go in this direction. > Most cvs ebuilds I've seen are nearly identical to a non-cvs ebuild. The only changes that should be required might be related to running autogen before configure, besides that, the build process should not need to be changed. I think this is the 'scripts or tips' type thing that most people are doing now. As for extending gentoo or portage to do it more seemlessly, well, you'd need to get hacking on portage to do that. Combining the power of a cvs ebuild with a regular one would probably not be all that difficult. Having portage take your own tree from a particular user's home directory on the other hand seems like a bit of a stretch, and no necessarily all that useful. Robert -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCYaorZwjIiODIZ4oRAvAeAJ0TQNY6b9VRf9dZL2IdouuV92ohCACfaj9K xbQznSFNGnVPCEiRFcE1QJA= =1NjA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
