i attached the repo's tarball.  hopefully it has all the files that
are necessary to reproduce it.  This is the version of darcs that i
have

$ darcs --version
2.0.2 (release)

 $ ghc --version
The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 6.10.1

darcs show gives:

         Type: darcs
       Format: darcs-1.0
         Root: /tmp/haskell
     Pristine: PlainPristine "_darcs/pristine"
        Cache: thisrepo:/tmp/haskell, cache:/home/eykk10/.darcs/cache
Default Remote: http://code.haskell.org/gentoo/gentoo-haskell/
  Num Patches: 2102

Anatoly

Attachments

• haskell.tar.gz

Pasting in some more comments from Anatoly on darcs-users

> darcs get on Ubuntu Linux gives this problem:
>  darcs:
/tmp/haskell/_darcs/patches/20080813214533-1db7e-ec8d5f1f46ee9169519f6a5da2cec343c6e38118.gz:
+copyFile: does not exist (No such file or directory)


>
> darcs get --hashed this gives this problem:
>
> darcs: unable to read patch:
> Tue Sep  5 20:44:29 BST 2006  Andres Loeh <kosmikus@gentoo.org>
>  * move everything from portage/ to /
>
/tmp/haskell/_darcs/patches/20060905194429-8e8c0-f49f4b06edaae8bc90d1b60f8362901b77d600f7.gz:
+openBinaryFile: does not exist (No such file or directory)

i get the same error, not sure why

> Finally, is this a partial repository?  Was it obtained with darcs get
> --partial?

this repo is synced by gentoo's layman tool.  Looking at the source,
it looks like it was done with --partial

# darcs commands with command-specific options
[ -z "$EDARCS_GET_CMD" ] && EDARCS_GET_CMD="get --partial"

Could you try this with just darcs get and not darcs get --partial?

This might be another reason to use darcs hashed repositories (which are darcs
1.0 compatible [i.e. it's possible to push patches back and forth], but require
a darcs 2 client).  Hashed repositories give you the option of using darcs get
--lazy, which is more robust.

Hi Anatoly,

I don't know if this helps, but I was able to do:
  darcs get http://code.haskell.org/gentoo/gentoo-haskell
with no problems although it did take a while.

Partial repositories have always been problematic.  In the future, Darcs will
deprecate the flag --partial (by making it do the same as --complete).

I'm making Lennart nosy on this bug.  Lennart: is it safe to say yet that Gentoo
users are using Darcs 2 clients?  If so, I think it would be a good time to use
hashed format repositories for gentoo-haskell and switch the --partial flag to a
--lazy one.  What do you think?

I'm marking need-info on Lennart so that we can see if just upgrading out of the
problem is an acceptable solution for Gentoo folks.  Many thanks!

We're going to need some help from Gentoo users to reproduce this.  

I'll note that I've been able to pull from that tarball and also to get
the repo just fine.

Also, though this may not be related, I've been in touch with trofi from
#gentoo-haskell who says they've repaired a broken repo very recently
(on the night of this report).  Maybe this affects things?

Anyway, I don't think there's much more we can do about this bug unless
we get some more hints about how to reproduce the problem.  Sorry!

We'd like to move to darcs-2.4 in gentoo, but there are a number of
things we need to do to get there.
darcs-2.4.1 will be part of this, as the test suite will work with this
version (and it doesn't work in darcs-2.4). Since so much has happened
since darcs 2.2 we'd like to run the tests for darcs and its
dependencies on all architectures, with the help of gentoo's arch teams.

Currently 2.0.2 is stable, and we could mark 2.1.0-r1 or 2.2.1 stable on
many arches. See the overview here:
http://packages.gentoo.org/package/dev-vcs/darcs?full_cat

But... yes, Gentoo users should be running at least version 2.0.2 on
most arches.

Related to this, we do have trouble migrating to the darcs2 format. As I
understand users of an repo must remove their repo and get it again once
the "master" repo is migrated to darcs2?
This is very tricky to do with layman, I don't know how to properly
handle it without having the user remove the old repo themselves.
Naturally we'd like this to work automatically for the users somehow,
without them having to care. We don't have that control over layman
though...

Thanks for the update!  I've replied to some stuff at
http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2010-March/023466.html

In light of most Gentoo users having a Darcs 2 client, I would then
suggest moving to hashed format repos, which are more robust and also
faster (no conversion process, lazy get).  This does not address this
particular bug, though :-(

But it may make it a bit clearer why things like the above happen...