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