Re: PPC SHA-1 Updates in "pu"

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

Dear diary, on Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:21:30PM CEST, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> Pasky, can we first iron out kinks in the build procedure and
> installation before converting existing programs further?

Sure.

> The things I worry about currently are:
> 
>  - the SITELIBARCH gotcha I sent you a message about (and you
>    responded to it already -- was that an Acked-by?);

Yes. :-)

>  - RPM target -- we probably acquired a new build-dependency in
>    which case the .spec file needs to be updated;

Well, perl is currently not listed even as a runtime dependency,
so does it really need to be listed as a build dependency?

>  - Make sure Git.xs builds and installed result works fine on
>    all platforms we care about, including Cygwin and other
>    non-Linux boxes.

Unfortunately I don't have access to a lot of those. :-(

> I'd even suggest we revert the changes to git-fmt-merge-msg to
> keep it working for now, until the above worries are resolved.
> Otherwise we cannot have it in "next" safely (and I REALLY _do_
> want to have Git.pm infrastructure in "next" soonish).

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

> We can start using Git.xs and friends in some _new_ ancillary
> programs, once we solve building and installing problems for
> everybody.  That way it would help us gain portability and
> confidence without disrupting existing users.

Well, I don't think it's very likely that Git.pm per se would be buggy
on a certain specific platform - it should either work as well as
everywhere else or not build at all, in which case you have disrupted
the existing users anyway. :-) (But without disrupting anyone we won't
get any bugreports and never get it fixed.)

Perhaps other converted perl scripts can linger at least on the pu
branch?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
A person is just about as big as the things that make them angry.