bug#67240: dev: “make” of Guix fails, non-existent .git/hooks directory

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On a very fresh install of a system, I have just cloned the Guix
> repository then run the dance ./bootstrap, ./configure and make.  It
> fails because:
>
> cp: cannot create regular file '.git/hooks/pre-push': No such file or 
> directory
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:7454: .git/hooks/pre-push] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/simon/src/guix/guix'
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:6137: all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/simon/src/guix/guix'
> make: *** [Makefile:4253: all] Error 2
>
> In the file Makefile.am, nothing check that the directory .git/hooks
> exists before copying to it.  By default, it does not seem created.  At
> least, it was not with a fresh clone using Git from Guix revision
> fc6bdaa.

It should, according to [0]:

"When you initialize a new repository with git init, Git populates the
hooks directory with a bunch of example scripts, many of which are
useful by themselves [...]"

I believe 'git clone' calls 'git init' under the hood.

[0] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Hooks.html

It also appears to do that, even using the older Guix commit you
provided:

$ guix time-machine -q --commit=fc6bdaa -- shell --pure git nss-certs \
  -- git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git /tmp/guix
$ ls /tmp/guix/.git/
branches/  config  description  HEAD  hooks/  index  info/  logs/  objects/  
packed-refs  refs/

As you can see; the 'hooks' directory is there.

> I propose this patch attached.
>
> diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
> index cbc3191dfc..6e9a22fae5 100644
> --- a/Makefile.am
> +++ b/Makefile.am
> @@ -1170,6 +1170,7 @@ cuirass-jobs: $(GOBJECTS)
>  # Git auto-configuration.
>  .git/hooks/pre-push: etc/git/pre-push
>       $(AM_V_at)if test -d .git; then \
> +     mkdir -p .git/hooks; \
>       cp etc/git/pre-push .git/hooks/pre-push; \
>       fi

If you could come up with a reproducer, I don't mind applying such a
change, but so far it seems unnecessary?

I'm tentatively closing this old report.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim