| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> David Leverton wrote: |
| 6 |
>> 2008/9/5 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>: |
| 7 |
>>> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler |
| 8 |
>>> for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> But is it so much simpler as to justify adding a special |
| 11 |
>> gitweb-specific hack to the package managers? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well, it's not much different from the existing file extension logic |
| 14 |
> that's already built into the unpack function. I think what really |
| 15 |
> matters is whether or not the majority of people see it as a useful |
| 16 |
> extension. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think the question isn't 'why is this functionality being made |
| 19 |
available'; I think to me it is useful piece of code. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I question its inclusion in the PM though; I would rather see it in |
| 22 |
eutils or something similar. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Arguably you could inherit a function from eutils that does SRC_URI |
| 25 |
transformation for you. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
SRC_URI="foo bar baz;sf=tbz2" |
| 28 |
src_uri_gitize |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
would transform "baz;sf=tbz2" into "baz;sf=tbz2 -> baz.tar.bz2" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> - -- |
| 34 |
> Thanks, |
| 35 |
> Zac |
| 36 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjA4iMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOPxwCfWolOw1zC+VbgrGrFQXqRwoXn |
| 40 |
> vDoAoOLGL+PXhyCb2+cmAI4INLfO9reS |
| 41 |
> =TXwO |
| 42 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
Archives