1 |
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:33:33 +0200 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> PMS doesn't mention lzma-compressed tar files, but Portage (and also |
4 |
> Paludis, as far as I can see) can unpack them. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> And I think calling simple *.lzma and *.xz files "archives" is |
7 |
> misleading. They are just single compressed files like *.gz or *.bz2. |
8 |
> Patch is attached. |
9 |
|
10 |
Applied, thanks (I tweaked the indenting slightly). |
11 |
|
12 |
> We could also think about reordering the list of extensions. Currently |
13 |
> it's not very systematic. |
14 |
|
15 |
Right. I think the order's how things used to be in Portage back when |
16 |
we made the list. It'd probably look nicer as a table, something like: |
17 |
|
18 |
Extension EAPIs Must have installed |
19 |
1 2 3 |
20 |
.tar.gz y y y GNU tar, GNU gzip |
21 |
.tar.lzma y LZMA Utils |
22 |
|
23 |
That's an 'easy' exercise for someone who feels like being helpful... |
24 |
|
25 |
Incidentally, one of the things I was hoping to get in for EAPI 4 was a |
26 |
fix for the arbitrary and weird dependencies required for unpacking. I |
27 |
think we briefly discussed doing something like making the package |
28 |
manager have 'magic' packages, so you'd do: |
29 |
|
30 |
DEPEND="package-manager-magic/unpack-zip" |
31 |
|
32 |
to tell the package manager to depend upon whatever it really uses to |
33 |
unzip things. I don't recall whether this was feasible from a Portage |
34 |
perspective though. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |