# Eliminate curl binary 7 messages from 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03. Participants: Stepan Kasal, Johan Herland, Jakub Narebski. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/13776 ## Stepan Kasal, 2008-06-03 10:53 Subject: Eliminate curl binary Message-ID: <20080603105323.GA15825@camelia.ucw.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080603105323.GA15825%40camelia.ucw.cz ``` Hello, git source code uses curl (the binary) on exactly one spot: git-clone.sh I would welcome if that spot were rewritten so that git would no longer require curl, only libcurl. (I clashed with a design flaw of curl cmd-line interfaace, so I'd like to uninstalle it. ;-) Nothing against libcurl.) I apologize that I'm not providing a patch, and hope that this quick bug report (enhancement request) is better than doing nothing. OTOH, I might write a patch later, so quick hints are welcome. (A git-* binary shall be called insted of curl in git-clone.sh; shall it be written from scratch, or is there a git-*.c source which can be bended for this purpose?) Have a nice day, Stepan Kasal ``` ## Johan Herland, 2008-06-03 11:14 Subject: Re: Eliminate curl binary Message-ID: <200806031314.52579.johan@herland.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200806031314.52579.johan%40herland.net In-Reply-To: <20080603105323.GA15825@camelia.ucw.cz> ``` On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hello, > > git source code uses curl (the binary) on exactly one spot: > git-clone.sh > I would welcome if that spot were rewritten so that git would no > longer require curl, only libcurl. In the next version of Git (v1.5.6, currently in RC1), git-clone.sh has been replaced by a builtin C version (builtin-clone.c, part of the git binary). I assume the new version uses libcurl instead of the curl binary. Have fun! :) ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net ``` ## Stepan Kasal, 2008-06-03 12:13 Subject: Re: Eliminate curl binary Message-ID: <20080603121332.GA16570@camelia.ucw.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080603121332.GA16570%40camelia.ucw.cz In-Reply-To: <200806031314.52579.johan@herland.net> ``` Hello, On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > In the next version of Git (v1.5.6, currently in RC1), git-clone.sh has > been replaced by a builtin C version (builtin-clone.c, part of the git great! I have to apologize again, that I haven't checked the devel source of git. Thanks, Stepan ``` ## Stepan Kasal, 2008-06-03 13:58 Subject: Re: Eliminate curl binary Message-ID: <20080603135851.GB17302@camelia.ucw.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080603135851.GB17302%40camelia.ucw.cz In-Reply-To: <20080603121332.GA16570@camelia.ucw.cz> ``` Hello again. (Sorry for answering twice, I type quicker than I think.) > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > > In the next version of Git (v1.5.6, currently in RC1), git-clone.sh has > > been replaced by a builtin C version (builtin-clone.c, part of the git In that case, git.spec.in should not require curl. (A diff with proposed patch attached.) That said, I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake. Stepan Kasal (FYI: I'm a Fedora developper, working for Red Hat.) diff --git a/git.spec.in b/git.spec.in index 97a26be..cd8e883 100644 --- a/git.spec.in +++ b/git.spec.in @@ -7,12 +7,12 @@ Summary: Core git tools License: GPL Group: Development/Tools URL: http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/ -Source: http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -BuildRequires: zlib-devel >= 1.2, openssl-devel, curl-devel, expat-devel, gettext %{!?_without_docs:, xmlto, asciidoc > 6.0.3} +Source: http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 +BuildRequires: zlib-devel >= 1.2, openssl-devel, libcurl-devel, expat-devel, gettext %{!?_without_docs:, xmlto, asciidoc > 6.0.3} BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Requires: perl-Git = %{version}-%{release} -Requires: zlib >= 1.2, rsync, curl, less, openssh-clients, expat +Requires: zlib >= 1.2, rsync, less, openssh-clients, expat Provides: git-core = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: git-core <= 1.5.4.2 Obsoletes: git-p4 ``` ## Jakub Narebski, 2008-06-03 14:23 Subject: Re: Eliminate curl binary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/m3zlq2zjgz.fsf%40localhost.localdomain In-Reply-To: <20080603135851.GB17302@camelia.ucw.cz> ``` Stepan Kasal writes: > [...], I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and > other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake. Not only Fedora (and Fedora derivatives) use RPMs. Contrary to deb packages and Debian there aren't, I think, many RPM packages with designed package maintainer; the development style for deb and for rpm packages is a bit different. Besides, git.spec generated by git Makefile from git.spec.in isn't distribution specific. And it allows me to install git in a packaging system on and old machine with old Aurox 11.1 (Polish distribution, no longer active, based on Fedora Core 4), with glibc-2.3.5-10.3 via "rpmbuild --rebuild" from .src.rpm. I'd rather _not_ lose this ability. -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git ``` ## Stepan Kasal, 2008-06-03 15:20 Subject: spec file in tarball (was: Eliminate curl binary) Message-ID: <20080603152054.GA19027@camelia.ucw.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080603152054.GA19027%40camelia.ucw.cz In-Reply-To: ``` Hello, On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:23:21AM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Stepan Kasal writes: > > [...], I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and > > other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake. > > Not only Fedora (and Fedora derivatives) use RPMs. I always suspected this is just a wish, I had the implression that the rpm-based distribution has diverged too much. > Besides, git.spec generated by git Makefile from git.spec.in > isn't distribution specific. I often hear this, yet I see e.g. SuSE or Polish Linux creating spec files very different from what is used in Fedora. > And it allows me to install git > in a packaging system on and old machine with old Aurox 11.1 > (Polish distribution, no longer active, based on Fedora Core 4), > with glibc-2.3.5-10.3 via "rpmbuild --rebuild" from .src.rpm. (I suppose you meant "rpmbuild -ta", that's the feature which takes the spec file from the tarball.) The value of this statement is limited by the fact that it's a fork of Fedora. What value does that spec file bring for Mandrake users, for example? Happy hacking, Stepan ``` ## Jakub Narebski, 2008-06-03 16:08 Subject: Re: spec file in tarball (was: Eliminate curl binary) Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/m3ve0qzekl.fsf%40localhost.localdomain In-Reply-To: <20080603152054.GA19027@camelia.ucw.cz> ``` Stepan Kasal writes: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:23:21AM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > Stepan Kasal writes: > > > > > > [...], I do think that including Fedora-style spec files and > > > other distribution-specific files into the tarball is a mistake. But I use it... > > Not only Fedora (and Fedora derivatives) use RPMs. > > I always suspected this is just a wish, I had the impression that > the rpm-based distribution has diverged too much. > > > Besides, git.spec generated by git Makefile from git.spec.in > > isn't distribution specific. > > I often hear this, yet I see e.g. SuSE or Polish Linux creating spec > files very different from what is used in Fedora. True, spec files for a given _distribution_ (SuSE, PLD, Mandriva) are often _distribution specific_, containing bits that make distro different (for example translations of summary and description). That doesn't change the fact, that git.spec file generated during build system and contained in the tarball (it is _single file_!), and RPM files in http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/ are (I think) not distribution specific, and can be installed on [almost] any RPM-based distribution. > > And it allows me to install git > > in a packaging system on and old machine with old Aurox 11.1 > > (Polish distribution, no longer active, based on Fedora Core 4), > > with glibc-2.3.5-10.3 via "rpmbuild --rebuild" from .src.rpm. > > (I suppose you meant "rpmbuild -ta", that's the feature which takes > the spec file from the tarball.) No, I meant "rpmbuild --rebuild git-*.src.rpm", which I download from kernel.org. I could use "rpmbuild -ta git-*.tar.gz" instead, but I'm just used to this way of installing/upgrading git on my machine. > The value of this statement is limited by the fact that it's a fork > of Fedora. What value does that spec file bring for Mandrake users, > for example? Besides I think that git.git git.spec.in file is a good basis for distribution specific spec files... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git ```