[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `master` is now `main`
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: `master` is now `main` |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Jan 2021 11:23:40 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> Anyone else seeing a failed fresh clone? :-(
>>
>> $ git clone -o sv git+ssh://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/emacs/elpa
>> Clone in 'elpa' in corso...
>> remote: Counting objects: 335978, done.
>> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (94283/94283), done.
>> remote: Total 335978 (delta 238158), reused 335412 (delta 237677)
>> Ricezione degli oggetti: 100% (335978/335978), 227.92 MiB | 4.61 MiB/s,
>> fatto.
>> Risoluzione dei delta: 100% (238158/238158), fatto.
>> fatal: non si รจ ricevuto l'oggetto atteso
>> 1b04f0fcd58ea0c82e522bd6e49dc08a3c7912ec
>> fatal: index-pack non riuscito
>>
>> (Grumble, old computers, bad RAM, grumble.)
>
> I believe you need to use this:
>
> git -c fetch.fsckObjects=false clone .../elpa
I think the fsck failure leads to a different error message, so
I suspect that's not his problem.
I don't know what could be the cause of his problem, but I'll note that
you can do the following:
git --single-branch -b main git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs/elpa.git
which will download very little info (only the `main` branch) so is more
likely to avoid the problem you're seeing (I think).
Of course, that won't get you all the GNU ELPA packages. But subsequent
make packages/[PKGNAME]
should then fetch the corresponding package's info. So if you're not
interested in downloading all the packages but only a handful of them,
it can be good option.
> The fetch.fsckObjects setting works around a glitch in the ELPA
> repository <https://debbugs.gnu.org/22690>.
> (IMO, we should just bite the bullet and recreate the repository with
> the correct settings, but that's me.)
Actually, the fsck failure is for an object that was in the old `master`
branch (now named `old/master-2020-dec-14`), which is not used any more.
We should purge it from the repository, but I think it's a bit too early
for that. Alternatively, we could setup another repository where could
keep this branch (maybe along with other old/deprecated branches).
Also if someone is interested in recreating the branch without the fsck
problem, please go ahead. I don't have the motivation to look into how
to do that (it's probably a small matter of rebasing or something like
that).
Stefan