Bug 10549 – bitkeeper-3.0.ebuild (new package, update of bug 7922)

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Evan Powers 2002-11-10 17:00:36 UTC]

The attached ebuild installs bitkeeper-3.0. 
 
It is a re-write of the ebuild in bug 7922 (bitkeeper-2.1); I think this 
implementation is marginally nicer. 
 
This is my first ebuild, so someone more knowledgeable should look over my 
code. In particular I'm not sure what the official way to select different 
package tarballs based on architecture is, or whether an /etc/env.d file 
should be created with a here-document in the ebuild or included as a separate 
file.

[Comment 1 Evan Powers 2002-11-10 17:02:01 UTC]

Created attachment 5550 [details]
ebuild for BitKeeper 3.0

[Comment 2 Zach Welch (RETIRED) 2002-11-11 15:57:39 UTC]

I will look at this and put it in portage asap.

[Comment 3 phoen][x 2002-11-15 13:54:23 UTC]

*** Bug 7922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 4 Zach Welch (RETIRED) 2002-11-16 01:13:28 UTC]

Update DEPEND, add BKL to licenses, and *poof* bitkeeper is now in dev-util. 
 
Enjoy. 

[Comment 5 Evan Powers 2002-11-18 18:26:24 UTC]

I just noticed the bitkeeper-3.0 ebuild doesn't fix the permissions 
and ownership of the installed files after they come out of the tarball. 
Several files were world writable and all had a bizzare UID and GID. 
 
So, I'm including an appropriate patch, and a suggested patch for the 
ChangeLog. I guess this makes it bitkeeper-3.0-r1.ebuild. 
 
Can't believe I missed this. 

[Comment 6 Evan Powers 2002-11-18 18:30:37 UTC]

Created attachment 5782 [details, diff]
patch 3.0 -> 3.0-r1

Patch to fix the permissions and ownership of the installed files.
Also changes the "use arch" constructs to look more like the form suggested in
the Gentoo devel guide.

[Comment 7 Evan Powers 2002-11-18 18:32:48 UTC]

Created attachment 5783 [details, diff]
suggested ChangeLog patch 3.0 -> 3.0-r1

Suggested ChangeLog patch for the ebuild patch

[Comment 8 Zach Welch (RETIRED) 2002-11-18 18:57:11 UTC]

Instead of using chmod, did you try adding -p to the tar command?  This will
extract whatever permissions are in the archive and is probably the Right Thing
To Do in this case.

I have applied the use flag patch, but I will wait to hear back from you before
I commit the -r1 ebuild.

[Comment 9 Evan Powers 2002-11-18 22:37:04 UTC]

Yeah, I thought of that myself. Unfortunately the permissions and ownerships 
encoded inside the tarball actually are wrong. 
 
On inspection, the bk install script does an equivalent operation after 
extracting the tarball. Don't know why I didn't see that the first time. 

[Comment 10 Zach Welch (RETIRED) 2002-11-19 15:30:18 UTC]

okay then, I've commited your changes as you submitted them.