Quoting Wookey (2014-02-06 14:42:46)
> BTW do we know a way to have more than one git repo in an alioth
> project It would make a lot more sense to have separate repos for the
> various packages: cross-binutils, cross-gcc, cross-support rather than
> the one 'crosstoolchain' which currently continas them all.
>
> But I only see a link for 'create a personal repo', not for 'add a
> project repo'.
Short version: Avoid Alioth web interface as much as possible.
We _do_ have separate repos, FusionForge is just too dumb to show it.
Here is the public list of (sub)projects in the crosstoolchain team:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?a=project_list;pf=crosstoolchain
I suggest to reshape the current crosstoolchain/crosstoolchain (which
anyway only contains cross-binutils (versioned which is also a flaw)) to
be crosstoolchain/cross-binutils with one level subdirectory snipped.
Since that git is only few days old and only you and I have committed to
it so far, we should not need warn anyone about such "radical" change.
Shall I do that? I can leave the old one around, and drop it only
when you've looked at my work and approved it - how does that sound?
***
For a more detailed response, here's my current attitude towards Alioth:
1) Request a bare project
2) Self-approve the project (any DD can do that) at
https://alioth.debian.org/admin/approve-pending.php
3) Turn off any features except mailinglist(s)
4) Enable DD special group, and grant it VCS write access
5) Make all members admins, and remove any non-admin groups
6) Add a wiki page, promoting non-alioth URLs for anything but
the landing page for the project (needed to request membership
which is needed for non-DDs to get write access to git area)
> Where does one ask alioth-admin questions?
On OFTC.net at #alioth
Be nice to the Alioth admins and they don't bite or ignore you -
speaking from own experience trying both. Perhaps being british is a
benefit there :-)
> +++ Jonas Smedegaard [2014-02-06 12:21 +0100]:
>> Quoting Wookey (2014-02-06 00:21:10)
>>> +++ Wookey [2014-02-04 17:18 +0000]:
>>>> And someone with better make foo than me could make a generic rule
>>>> for the various arch targets rather than lots of copies (OK for 2,
>>>> annoying for 9)
>>>
>>> OK. I worked this out. It's quite pleasing now.
>>
>> Just "pleasing"? You gotta be british or something: It is damn neat!
>
> Right. It actually got neater overall once I had defined a pattern
> rule as then I could use $* (stem) and a nice stamp-name, whereas
> before I had to use a truncated stamp name and $(@F) (part after
> directory slash).
Right: Stem variables is *the* key to well-structured "loops" in make.
> I've started a cross-gcc package too with similar structure which
> currently isn't building due to not looking in right host-arch dir to
> find bits/predefs.h. sigh.
Go, Wookey, go!
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature