1 |
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:06:27 +0200 |
2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
6 |
> |
7 |
> On 06/08/2012 03:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
8 |
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:34:32 +0200 Is there a need for that? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I don't know, do you? |
11 |
|
12 |
Estimated to three packages, two in gx86, one in betagarden. All |
13 |
of them grabbing zipballs from github, so can be easily changed to |
14 |
download tarballs instead. |
15 |
|
16 |
Do you see a reason why they should use zipballs which are larger |
17 |
and require adding unzip to DEPEND rather than tarballs? The only |
18 |
reason for that I can see is that they copy-pasted the 'download' URI |
19 |
from somewhere where author posted only zipball link. |
20 |
|
21 |
> This reduces the amount of archives the eclass can handle. Unless |
22 |
> gentoo decides to drop zip support I don't see a reason to do that in |
23 |
> an eclass too just for the sake of code-style. |
24 |
|
25 |
It's for a sake of code & work amount. And zip support in Gentoo is not |
26 |
obligatory. You need to add unzip to your DEPEND yourself. |
27 |
|
28 |
> My previous implementation had no trouble with zipballs. So if you |
29 |
> suggest a new implementation I would expect that to be better. |
30 |
|
31 |
Your previous implementation was against the KISS principle. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Best regards, |
35 |
Michał Górny |