| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:39:16AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> David Leverton wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 2008/9/5 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>: |
| 4 |
> >> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler |
| 5 |
> >> for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > But is it so much simpler as to justify adding a special |
| 8 |
> > gitweb-specific hack to the package managers? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Well, it's not much different from the existing file extension logic |
| 11 |
> that's already built into the unpack function. I think what really |
| 12 |
> matters is whether or not the majority of people see it as a useful |
| 13 |
> extension. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm wondering why would one fetch a tarball instead of using git.eclass |
| 16 |
which is much better for both upstream and users (in terms of bandwidth |
| 17 |
and resources usage). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
- ferdy |
Archives