On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:37:27AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 9:19 AM Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Jonathan Wakely kirjoitti 29.1.2021 klo 18.22: > > > On 29/01/21 17:04 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > >> On 29. 01. 21 16:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >>> > > >>> So if fedpkg clone just added things to .git/info/exclude there would > > >>> be no need to modify every .gitignore file in every repo on every > > >>> active branch. > > >> > > >> That is already the case \o/ > > >> > > >> https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.37.html#ignore-files-in-a-cloned-repository > > >> > > > > > > Nice! But making 'fedpkg local' unpack into ./build and then build in > > > there still seems sensible, so the excluded patterns would change for > > > that (I don't care about that as I don't use 'fedpkg local', but it > > > seems like a good suggestion). > > > > > > > Since I got bitten by this, I could try to improve it. Suggestion here > > seems workable to me. So 1) using ./build in 'fedpkg local' and 2) > > adding that directory 'fedpkg clone' excludes. Clearly defined task with > > limited scope. > > > > One question that remains is this: 'fedpkg clone' already does what it > > does and from this discussion we know that many people are using it. If > > the file locations change, changing fedpkg will lead to confusion, > > annoyance and perhaps worse. And while I have not seen any scripts using > > 'fedpkg local', there may be such. Those would break. So perhaps it > > should actually be a new command, maybe 'fedpkg localbuild' (to match > > 'fedpkg mockbuild'), together with documentation update and runtime > > deprecation notice when using 'fedpkg local'. I don't think this is so important. The name of the build directory changes with each package version and build architecture, so it would be awkward to use in a script. I'd just an an option to 'local', something like --location=cwd|subdir, and maybe initially keep the default unchanged, and later flip the default once the new paths have become established. > > How does that sound? Particularly to all of you who actually use 'fedpkg > > local'. I got the understanding that while generally users are happy > > with the current behavior, there is no reason why the file generation > > paths could not or should not be made more git friendly. > If you're doing something like this, why not have it match what > "fedpkg mockbuild" already does? > Everything (including rebuilt srpm, built rpms, build logs) goes into > ./results_%{name}/%{version}/%{release}/ > And that directory is already covered by the default exclude rules > generated by "fedpkg clone". It would be great to make 'fedpkg local' use the same output dirs are 'fedpkg mockbuild'. The difference between the workflows is annoying. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
