Lars Hjemli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 23:35, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Doesn't cgit bind git.git as a subproject at the source level? I
>> would expect that the most natural release tarball for such a
>> project would be a single tarball that has both the superproject
>> itself _and_ the submodules it contains already extracted, iow, the
>> state of your tree after you run "make get-git".
>
> Your expectation makes sense to me, thanks for elaborating.
>
> Seth: would such a self-contained tarball solve the problems on your
> end?
(I'm not Seth, nor do I play him on TV -- though I have been offered
his role in a small town production of "How the Grinch Stole
Christmas"... ;)
The downside to this is that cgit would be duplicating the git
sources, and thus, so would any distribution packages. If there is a
bug in git, both the git and cgit packages would need to be updated to
fix it.
Basically, Fedora tries hard to use system libraries rather than
having applications include their own local copies. (I recall some
zlib vulnerabilities years back that required way too many packages to
be rebuilt, since they each included their own copy of zlib.)
Obviously, since git is not intended to be used as a library, this
doesn't exactly match that situation. But cgit is using git as a
library at the moment and if we could find a way to only have one copy
of the git sources to maintain, that'd be ideal from a distribution /
packaging perspective. I do understand that it might not be as ideal
from either git or cgit developer / maintainer perspective, so the
consideration you're giving the issue is very much appreciated.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I never vote for anyone; I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Attachment:
pgpEDkYsqa3Gu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
