{"thread":{"id":"13776","subject":"Eliminate curl binary","startedAt":"2008-06-03T10:53:23Z","lastAt":"2008-06-03T16:08:28Z","messageCount":7,"participants":["Stepan Kasal","Johan Herland","Jakub Narebski"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"78479","messageId":"20080603105323.GA15825@camelia.ucw.cz","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Eliminate curl binary","fromName":"Stepan Kasal","fromEmail":"kasal@ucw.cz","sentAt":"2008-06-03T10:53:23Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T10:53:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kasal@ucw.cz","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1481596?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\ngit source code uses curl (the binary) on exactly one spot:\ngit-clone.sh\nI would welcome if that spot were rewritten so that git would no\nlonger require curl, only libcurl.\n\n(I clashed with a design flaw of curl cmd-line interfaace, so I'd\nlike to uninstalle it.  ;-)  Nothing against libcurl.)\n\nI apologize that I'm not providing a patch, and hope that this quick\nbug report (enhancement request) is better than doing nothing.\n\nOTOH, I might write a patch later, so quick hints are welcome.\n(A git-* binary shall be called insted of curl in git-clone.sh; shall\nit be written from scratch, or is there a git-*.c source which can be\nbended for this purpose?)\n\nHave a nice day,\n\tStepan Kasal\n"},{"id":"78481","messageId":"200806031314.52579.johan@herland.net","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":"20080603105323.GA15825@camelia.ucw.cz","subject":"Re: Eliminate curl binary","fromName":"Johan Herland","fromEmail":"johan@herland.net","sentAt":"2008-06-03T11:14:52Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T11:14:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johan@herland.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/547031?v=4"},"body":"On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Stepan Kasal wrote:\n> Hello,\n>\n> git source code uses curl (the binary) on exactly one spot:\n> git-clone.sh\n> I would welcome if that spot were rewritten so that git would no\n> longer require curl, only libcurl.\n\nIn the next version of Git (v1.5.6, currently in RC1), git-clone.sh has \nbeen replaced by a builtin C version (builtin-clone.c, part of the git \nbinary). I assume the new version uses libcurl instead of the curl \nbinary.\n\n\nHave fun! :)\n\n...Johan\n\n\n-- \nJohan Herland, <johan@herland.net>\nwww.herland.net\n"},{"id":"78487","messageId":"20080603121332.GA16570@camelia.ucw.cz","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":"200806031314.52579.johan@herland.net","subject":"Re: Eliminate curl binary","fromName":"Stepan Kasal","fromEmail":"kasal@ucw.cz","sentAt":"2008-06-03T12:13:32Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T12:13:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kasal@ucw.cz","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1481596?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nOn Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:\n> In the next version of Git (v1.5.6, currently in RC1), git-clone.sh has \n> been replaced by a builtin C version (builtin-clone.c, part of the git \n\ngreat!\n\nI have to apologize again, that I haven't checked the devel source of\ngit.\n\nThanks,\n\nStepan\n"},{"id":"78502","messageId":"20080603135851.GB17302@camelia.ucw.cz","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":"20080603121332.GA16570@camelia.ucw.cz","subject":"Re: Eliminate curl binary","fromName":"Stepan Kasal","fromEmail":"kasal@ucw.cz","sentAt":"2008-06-03T13:58:51Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T13:58:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kasal@ucw.cz","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1481596?v=4"},"body":"Hello again.\n\n(Sorry for answering twice, I type quicker than I think.)\n\n> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:\n> > In the next version of Git (v1.5.6, currently in RC1), git-clone.sh has \n> > been replaced by a builtin C version (builtin-clone.c, part of the git \n\nIn that case, git.spec.in should not require curl.\n(A diff with proposed patch attached.)\n\nThat said, I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and\nother distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake.\n\nStepan Kasal\n\n(FYI: I'm a Fedora developper, working for Red Hat.)\n\n\ndiff --git a/git.spec.in b/git.spec.in\nindex 97a26be..cd8e883 100644\n--- a/git.spec.in\n+++ b/git.spec.in\n@@ -7,12 +7,12 @@ Summary:  \tCore git tools\n License: \tGPL\n Group: \t\tDevelopment/Tools\n URL: \t\thttp://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/\n-Source: \thttp://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz\n-BuildRequires:\tzlib-devel >= 1.2, openssl-devel, curl-devel, expat-devel, gettext  %{!?_without_docs:, xmlto, asciidoc > 6.0.3}\n+Source: \thttp://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2\n+BuildRequires:\tzlib-devel >= 1.2, openssl-devel, libcurl-devel, expat-devel, gettext  %{!?_without_docs:, xmlto, asciidoc > 6.0.3}\n BuildRoot:\t%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)\n \n Requires:\tperl-Git = %{version}-%{release}\n-Requires:\tzlib >= 1.2, rsync, curl, less, openssh-clients, expat\n+Requires:\tzlib >= 1.2, rsync, less, openssh-clients, expat\n Provides:\tgit-core = %{version}-%{release}\n Obsoletes:\tgit-core <= 1.5.4.2\n Obsoletes:\tgit-p4\n"},{"id":"78505","messageId":"m3zlq2zjgz.fsf@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":"20080603135851.GB17302@camelia.ucw.cz","subject":"Re: Eliminate curl binary","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-06-03T14:23:21Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T14:23:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> writes:\n\n> [...], I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and\n> other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake.\n\nNot only Fedora (and Fedora derivatives) use RPMs.  Contrary to\ndeb packages and Debian there aren't, I think, many RPM packages\nwith designed package maintainer; the development style for deb\nand for rpm packages is a bit different.\n\nBesides, git.spec generated by git Makefile from git.spec.in\nisn't distribution specific.  And it allows me to install git\nin a packaging system on and old machine with old Aurox 11.1\n(Polish distribution, no longer active, based on Fedora Core 4),\nwith glibc-2.3.5-10.3 via \"rpmbuild --rebuild\" from .src.rpm.\n\nI'd rather _not_ lose this ability.\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"78515","messageId":"20080603152054.GA19027@camelia.ucw.cz","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":"m3zlq2zjgz.fsf@localhost.localdomain","subject":"spec file in tarball (was: Eliminate curl binary)","fromName":"Stepan Kasal","fromEmail":"kasal@ucw.cz","sentAt":"2008-06-03T15:20:54Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T15:20:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kasal@ucw.cz","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1481596?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nOn Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:23:21AM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> writes:\n> > [...], I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and\n> > other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake.\n> \n> Not only Fedora (and Fedora derivatives) use RPMs.\n\nI always suspected this is just a wish, I had the implression that\nthe rpm-based distribution has diverged too much.\n\n> Besides, git.spec generated by git Makefile from git.spec.in\n> isn't distribution specific.\n\nI often hear this, yet I see e.g. SuSE or Polish Linux creating spec\nfiles very different from what is used in Fedora.\n\n> And it allows me to install git\n> in a packaging system on and old machine with old Aurox 11.1\n> (Polish distribution, no longer active, based on Fedora Core 4),\n> with glibc-2.3.5-10.3 via \"rpmbuild --rebuild\" from .src.rpm.\n\n(I suppose you meant \"rpmbuild -ta\", that's the feature which takes\nthe spec file from the tarball.)\n\nThe value of this statement is limited by the fact that it's a fork\nof Fedora.  What value does that spec file bring for Mandrake users,\nfor example?\n\nHappy hacking,\n\tStepan\n"},{"id":"78519","messageId":"m3ve0qzekl.fsf@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"13776","inReplyTo":"20080603152054.GA19027@camelia.ucw.cz","subject":"Re: spec file in tarball (was: Eliminate curl binary)","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-06-03T16:08:28Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-03T16:08:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> writes:\n\n> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:23:21AM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> > Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> writes:\n> > >\n> > > [...], I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and\n> > > other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake.\n\n<whine>But I use it...</whine>\n\n> > Not only Fedora (and Fedora derivatives) use RPMs.\n> \n> I always suspected this is just a wish, I had the impression that\n> the rpm-based distribution has diverged too much.\n> \n> > Besides, git.spec generated by git Makefile from git.spec.in\n> > isn't distribution specific.\n> \n> I often hear this, yet I see e.g. SuSE or Polish Linux creating spec\n> files very different from what is used in Fedora.\n\nTrue, spec files for a given _distribution_ (SuSE, PLD, Mandriva)\nare often _distribution specific_, containing bits that make distro\ndifferent (for example translations of summary and description).\n\nThat doesn't change the fact, that git.spec file generated during\nbuild system and contained in the tarball (it is _single file_!),\nand RPM files in http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/\nare (I think) not distribution specific, and can be installed on\n[almost] any RPM-based distribution.\n\n> > And it allows me to install git\n> > in a packaging system on and old machine with old Aurox 11.1\n> > (Polish distribution, no longer active, based on Fedora Core 4),\n> > with glibc-2.3.5-10.3 via \"rpmbuild --rebuild\" from .src.rpm.\n> \n> (I suppose you meant \"rpmbuild -ta\", that's the feature which takes\n> the spec file from the tarball.)\n\nNo, I meant \"rpmbuild --rebuild git-*.src.rpm\", which I download\nfrom kernel.org. I could use \"rpmbuild -ta git-*.tar.gz\" instead,\nbut I'm just used to this way of installing/upgrading git on my\nmachine.\n\n> The value of this statement is limited by the fact that it's a fork\n> of Fedora.  What value does that spec file bring for Mandrake users,\n> for example?\n\nBesides I think that git.git git.spec.in file is a good basis for\ndistribution specific spec files...\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"}]}