Re: [RFC] cgit in git?
- From
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
- Date
- Dec 11, 2008, 22:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200812112340.57223.johan@herland.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <8c5c35580812111348iceaf30dyb55183017cff5b1d@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 11 December 2008, Lars Hjemli wrote:
Show 34 quoted lines
> Background: I've been asked by the fedora project how to package cgit. > The problem is basically that cgit is designed to be statically linked > with a specific git release (i.e. libgit.a and xdiff/lib.a). > > When manually building cgit from a tarball this isn't a problem: > 'make get-git' will download the required git sources from kernel.org. > But the buildsystem/policy used by the fedora project does not allow > network access during package builds, and since it is quite unlikely > that the git package always will match the exact release needed by the > cgit package, I only see four options: > 1) the fedora project makes a 'git-for-cgit' package containing the > needed release of the git sources > 2) the cgit release tarballs includes the needed git sources > 3) the cgit sources are subtree-merged into git > 4) cgit is modified to link against libgit2 > > Option 1 seems unlikely to happen since such a 'git-for-cgit' package > would basically require the fedora project to support two git > packages. > > Option 2 is doable but still requires the fedora project to support > two git packages (but now the 'git-for-cgit' package is hidden inside > the cgit source tree). The good thing about this option is that it > only requires some minor modifications to the cgit releases. > > Option 3 would solve the problem for the fedora project but is not for > me to decide - it might become an extra maintenance burden on the git > maintainer and community. > > Option 4 is the correct solution but not a very practical one; it's > currently hard to predict when libgit2 will be ready for general > (c)git use. > > Personally I'd love for option 3 to happen, hence this rfc.
Option 5: Include cgit as a submodule in git.git. Then it's available to those who want it, but not cloned/built by default.
If that doesn't pan out, I also support option #3.
I've been a happy cgit user for a number of months, and have yet to find a single issue where cgit is not better than or equal to gitweb. I have nothing bad to say about gitweb per se, but cgit simply offers me a better user experience, not least because of its blazing speed.
Have fun!
...Johan
-- Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net> www.herland.net