Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: hasufell@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: vcs-snapshot-r1.eclass -- a better eclass for VCS snapshots (and others)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:24:40
Message-Id: 20120608162451.514e3238@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: vcs-snapshot-r1.eclass -- a better eclass for VCS snapshots (and others) by hasufell
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:06:27 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/08/2012 03:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:34:32 +0200 Is there a need for that? > > I don't know, do you?
Estimated to three packages, two in gx86, one in betagarden. All of them grabbing zipballs from github, so can be easily changed to download tarballs instead. Do you see a reason why they should use zipballs which are larger and require adding unzip to DEPEND rather than tarballs? The only reason for that I can see is that they copy-pasted the 'download' URI from somewhere where author posted only zipball link.
> This reduces the amount of archives the eclass can handle. Unless > gentoo decides to drop zip support I don't see a reason to do that in > an eclass too just for the sake of code-style.
It's for a sake of code & work amount. And zip support in Gentoo is not obligatory. You need to add unzip to your DEPEND yourself.
> My previous implementation had no trouble with zipballs. So if you > suggest a new implementation I would expect that to be better.
Your previous implementation was against the KISS principle. -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies