| Time |
S |
Nick |
Message |
| 02:09 |
|
porrifolius |
Hi there. I'm trying to get some help compiling darcs 1.0.9 with ghc 6.8.2. I get: |
| 02:09 |
|
porrifolius |
checking GHC.Handle.openFd... NOT old APIchecking GHC.Handle.openFd new API... failedconfigure: error: Couldnt figure out how to call GHC.Handle.openFd! |
| 02:10 |
|
porrifolius |
Looks to me like there is no GHC.Handle.openFd in ghc 6.8.2. |
| 02:19 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: update to the latest version of the source. I know this is fixed in unstable, and I thought it was fixed in stable. |
| 02:26 |
|
porrifolius |
lispy: I do have darcs 1.0.9 working with ghc6.8.2 on a different machine, but it has gone through succesive upgrades so I dunno if I ever compiled 1.0.9 with 6.8.2. Do you mean I should use unstable 1.x or the new 2.x? How should I go about getting the latest source? |
| 02:29 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: visit darcs.net, there is information at the bottom about getting the latest source |
| 02:29 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: if you get the lastest copy of the stable repository it should be 1.0.9 + bug fixes |
| 02:30 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: but the stable maintainer has been busy and hasn't had the time to prepare a release. |
| 02:30 |
|
lispy |
I think it should be safe though. |
| 02:30 |
|
lispy |
Even unstable is pretty safe, near as I can tell |
| 02:31 |
|
porrifolius |
lispy: ok, I'll try a darcs get http://darcs.net/repos/stable on a different machine and try and transfer it across to the new machine... death to all chickens and eggs. |
| 02:31 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: darcs |
| 02:31 |
|
lispy |
it's really just as easy as, darcs get --partial http://darcs.net/repos/stable darcs; cd darcs; make; ./configure; make install |
| 02:31 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: darcs |
| 02:32 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: if you get it on a different machine, you might try running, 'darcs dist' in the repo, that will generate a tarball that you can transfer to the new machine |
| 02:32 |
|
porrifolius |
lispy: ok, ta. I'll give that a try. |
| 02:32 |
|
lispy |
usually i just install from apt and then build a personal copy from sources |
| 02:33 |
|
porrifolius |
yeah, I'm using gentoo... has worked fine on my other machine... but maybe I leap-frogged the problem somehow. |
| 02:34 |
|
lispy |
ah, I've never used gentoo, so I wouldn't be much help there. |
| 02:44 |
|
porrifolius |
that's a good sign... it's got past the GHC.Handle api checks. |
| 02:44 |
|
lispy |
yup, good luck :) |
| 02:53 |
|
porrifolius |
lispy: are the release tars hosted on darcs.net just made via 'darcs dist'? |
| 02:53 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: I think mostly yes. |
| 02:54 |
|
lispy |
porrifolius: there are probably some preperatiion steps |
| 02:54 |
|
porrifolius |
ok thanks... just wondering how easiest to fool my package management system! |
| 04:01 |
|
porrifolius |
for the record/logs: in gentoo the darcs-1.0.9 ebuild was using the release that failed with ghc 6.8.2, the darcs-1.1.0_pre1 patched the darcs code to work with 6.8.2... but had a bug in the ebuild. That bug in the ebuild has now been fixed. So try out the darcs-1.1.0_pre1 (or later) if you're having trouble. |
| 17:07 |
|
zerny |
hi |
| 17:07 |
|
zerny |
I have a quick question. Is i ok to supply several "apply posthook ..." lines in the _darcs/prefs/defaults file? |
| 17:12 |
|
zooko |
Dunno. Try it and see. |
| 17:17 |
|
zerny |
ok. i have tried it and it does not seem to work |
| 17:18 |
|
zerny |
"apply posthook cmd1; cmd2" was the way to get it to work |
| 17:18 |
|
zerny |
if set on two separate lines cmd2 is not run |
| 17:19 |
|
zerny |
the online manual is not very clear on this. it says "To set multiple defaults for the same command (or for ALL commands), use multiple lines." |
| 17:19 |
|
zerny |
http://darcs.net/manual/node5.[…]10000000000000000 |
| 17:19 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: Configuring darcs |
| 18:43 |
|
droundy |
zerny: the meaning of "command" in that sentence is distinct from "flag", i.e. you can have apply --posthook foo and apply --no-test on different lines. |
| 18:48 |
|
gour |
droundy: hi, why is problem if the two repos were converted to darcs-2 format by issuing 'convert' on each one? |
| 18:48 |
|
droundy |
the conversion is lossy |
| 18:49 |
|
droundy |
and the information that is lost are likely to be different when the two repositories are converted. |
| 18:50 |
|
gour |
hmm, how it is expected that two people exchaning patches don't do that, i.e. that only one converts repo and then pull/push to the other? |
| 18:50 |
|
gour |
*exchanging |
| 18:57 |
|
gour |
droundy: i saw your note on roundup, but still does not get "once per project" when we use darcs in distributed environment :-/ |
| 18:58 |
|
droundy |
There has to be a flag day, if you don't want to or cannot do that, then you can't switch to the darcs-2 format. |
| 18:59 |
|
zooko |
But doesn't darcs-2 when using the darcs-2-format converge identical patches anyway? |
| 19:00 |
|
droundy |
it doesn't fix corruption, though. If you have two patches with identical names but different content, then you've got a corrupt repository under any version of darcs. |
| 19:01 |
|
zooko |
Do you plan to make the names include the secure hash of the patch content and context? |
| 19:01 |
|
zooko |
Because in that case what you just described will be impossible. :-) |
| 19:01 |
|
gour |
droundy: huh, good to know...anyway, now i'll start any new project with darcs-2 |
| 19:01 |
|
droundy |
gour: it is right there in the wiki. |
| 19:02 |
|
zooko |
http://wiki.darcs.net/DarcsWik[…]3452ecdb29ff4b810 |
| 19:02 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: ConflictsFAQ - DarcsWiki, http://tinyurl.com/36re4p |
| 19:02 |
|
zooko |
"doppelganger patches (identical patches) no longer conflict." |
| 19:02 |
|
zooko |
So, it seems like if two people independently convert their darcs-1 repos to darcs-2 repos, then the resulting doppleganger patches should be non-conflicting. |
| 19:02 |
|
zooko |
What am I missing? |
| 19:02 |
|
droundy |
we aren't talking about doppleganger patches, which are patches with the same contents but differing names. |
| 19:03 |
|
zooko |
nods. |
| 19:03 |
|
droundy |
we're talking about patches with the same name but different contents. |
| 19:03 |
|
zooko |
Oh, the contents are different because of differing contexts. |
| 19:03 |
|
zooko |
I understand now. |
| 19:03 |
|
zooko |
And how about my other question: are you planning to put the secure hash of the contents (including context) into the name, as you and I have previously discussed? |
| 19:03 |
|
droundy |
because of differing contexts, and because the conversion process to darcs-2 format is lossy. |
| 19:03 |
|
droundy |
zooko: I don't have any plans to do so, no. |
| 19:04 |
|
zooko |
Oh, but if the two people convert their repos when they exactly the same then they'll get identical-content patches, right? |
| 19:04 |
|
zooko |
Did you change your mind, or did I misunderstand? I thought you were planning to add sha-256 hashes of contents and context to the patch name, |
| 19:04 |
|
droundy |
yes, if the two repositories are identical in every respect, then the conversion produces two identical repositories. |
| 19:04 |
|
zooko |
last time we talked. |
| 19:04 |
|
droundy |
zooko: no, I wasn't planning to do so, I was just acknowledging that it could be done. |
| 19:04 |
|
zooko |
Oh. |
| 19:05 |
|
zooko |
Really? I really misunderstood. |
| 19:05 |
|
droundy |
Or maybe I was thinking I'd do so. But you could do this yourself if you wanted, without modifying darcs, so it's not high priority for me, and right now I want to focus on high priority changes. |
| 19:06 |
|
droundy |
Partly I'm just really stressed because I'm way behind on every aspect of work (darcs included) because I've been off at a conference for a week, and I'd got less than no spare time. |
| 19:06 |
|
gour |
i really wonder how will people manage migration to darcs-2 in distributed environment where many people have not-exact repos |
| 19:06 |
|
zooko |
I've just read back through, and perhaps I was confusing switching to sha256, which you intend to do, with adding secure hash of content and contexts into patch names. |
| 19:07 |
|
zooko |
Wouldn't that latter feature -- adding secure hash of content and context into patch names -- help with the "how do I convert my distributed project to darcs-2" problem, by preventing any two patches with identical names but different contents from existing anywhere ever? |
| 19:08 |
|
gour |
is getting curios |
| 19:10 |
|
zooko |
According to this: http://wiki.darcs.net/DarcsWik[…]e065875da77cc5f19 |
| 19:10 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: DarcsTwo - DarcsWiki, http://tinyurl.com/yw6cck |
| 19:10 |
|
droundy |
zooko: yes, it could help with that, but it'd also be a pain for that. |
| 19:10 |
|
zooko |
darcs-2 when using darcs-2-format will converge identical patches. |
| 19:10 |
|
zooko |
So, why wouldn't it Just Work? |
| 19:10 |
|
droundy |
It'd be a pain to code, not to use. |
| 19:10 |
|
zooko |
I see. |
| 19:10 |
|
zooko |
Sounds like we need more darcs coders. |
| 19:10 |
|
droundy |
We'd have to use two passes, so it'd slow things down. |
| 19:10 |
|
droundy |
Yes, we do need more darcs coders. |
| 19:11 |
|
zooko |
Two passes over what? |
| 19:11 |
|
droundy |
Over all the patches |
| 19:11 |
|
zooko |
Ah. |
| 19:11 |
|
zooko |
Although actually, each patch is necessarily not dependent on later patches, right? |
| 19:11 |
|
droundy |
the converted tag would depend on the contents of the patches referenced in the tag. |
| 19:11 |
|
zooko |
So it would be okay to define the context of the second patch in the repo as being just the first patch in the repo, then the context of the 3rd patch as being the first two patches, etc. |
| 19:12 |
|
droundy |
Right, so it'd still be O(N), unless you've got lots of tags, in which case it'd be O(N^2) |
| 19:12 |
|
zooko |
There is an object -- I think it is called a "manifest" -- which is a list of all the patches in this repository, right? |
| 19:12 |
|
zooko |
And this object is supposed to be kept always up to date, so whenever you add a patch, you have to add an entry to this object, right? |
| 19:14 |
|
zooko |
So, when converting from darcs-1-format or darcs-hashed-format to darcs-2-format, you start with the empty manifest, add the secure hash of patch 1's contents and the empty manifest to patch 1's name, then add patch 1 to the manifest, then go on to the next patch. |
| 19:14 |
|
zooko |
This is one-pass. |
| 19:19 |
|
droundy |
But each tag requires reading the manifest, making it O(N^2) |
| 19:20 |
|
droundy |
(it's actually called an inventory in darcs...) |
| 21:28 |
|
intripoon |
hi |
| 21:28 |
|
intripoon |
I've just tried out darcs |
| 21:29 |
|
lispy |
intripoon: congrats, what do you think? |
| 21:29 |
|
intripoon |
when I added a dir recursively to my repository, it wrote "Skipping boring file {some file}" a few times |
| 21:29 |
|
intripoon |
is there a way to modify the boring files list of darcs? |
| 21:29 |
|
lispy |
yes |
| 21:29 |
|
intripoon |
I searched the wiki but it didn't find anything for "boring file" |
| 21:29 |
|
intripoon |
oh great, how? |
| 21:30 |
|
lispy |
The wiki is nice, but you'll also want the manual: http://darcs.net/manual/ |
| 21:30 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: Darcs 1.1.0pre1 (unknown) Darcs |
| 21:30 |
|
lispy |
http://darcs.net/manual/node5.html |
| 21:30 |
|
lambdabot |
Title: Configuring darcs |
| 21:30 |
|
lispy |
intripoon: look at the section "boring" |
| 21:31 |
|
intripoon |
thanks |
| 21:31 |
|
intripoon |
so so can I just edit that boring file whenever I want? or just right after initializing a repository? |
| 21:32 |
|
lispy |
intripoon: chances are you want to include the boring file under version control |
| 21:33 |
|
lispy |
intripoon: there is a paragraph in that section that describes how to do it |
| 21:33 |
|
lispy |
I'm not normally so RTFM, but the manual really describes this in detail :) |
| 21:34 |
|
Heffalump |
you can edit it whenever you want |
| 21:35 |
|
intripoon |
I thought that's about forcing to add a file that is masked out as boring usually by the boring file |
| 21:36 |
|
lispy |
intripoon: if you edit _darcs/prefs/boring then when you share your repository with others they won't get your custom version. So that's why the manual explains how to track the boring file as part of the repository. Does that make more sense? |
| 21:36 |
|
intripoon |
yes I understood it already after RTFM |
| 21:37 |
|
lispy |
oh |
| 21:39 |
|
intripoon |
if I define a ~/.darcs/boring, which one will be used? the one in the repository I'm working on or the one in my home dir? |
| 21:45 |
|
lispy |
I'm not sure |
| 21:48 |
|
intripoon |
maybe the home dir version just gets used wehn initializing a new repository |
| 21:48 |
|
intripoon |
what's the equivalent to ~/.darcs/boring on windows? |
| 21:50 |
|
lispy |
intripoon: I don't use darcs on windows so I don't know. but, it's probably in C:\Documents And Settings\Username\ |
| 21:59 |
|
Heffalump |
uses darcs on windows but still doesn't know :-) |
