Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 51123 - generic unpacker script
Summary: generic unpacker script
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Core system (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Portage team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-05-15 04:31 UTC by Elan Ruusamäe
Modified: 2005-02-28 00:38 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
quickly put one up based on lesspipe.sh (unpack,394 bytes, text/plain)
2004-05-15 05:33 UTC, Elan Ruusamäe
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Elan Ruusamäe 2004-05-15 04:31:10 UTC
ever got tired writing the unzip, unrar x, tar jxvf, tar zxvf ?
so i propose that the ebuild unpacker scripts are added to userspace, so you could unpack any archive with same command. (could be vice versa too, then maybe other distros can reuse the package ;)

$ unpack archive.rar
$ unpack archive.zip
$ unpack archive.zoo
and so on

for viewing archive contents can use less
$ less archive.zip
altho less as of less-381 still cannot work with files with spaces (should file a bug again i guess)



Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Dick Marinus 2004-05-15 05:27:50 UTC
maybe we should add http://bloat.sourceforge.net/ to portage?
Comment 2 Elan Ruusamäe 2004-05-15 05:33:42 UTC
Created attachment 31468 [details]
quickly put one up based on lesspipe.sh
Comment 3 Seemant Kulleen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-05-16 21:40:07 UTC
cute idea, actually
Comment 4 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2004-05-17 15:13:44 UTC
yeah, rather than writing our own, why not just add bloat ;)
Comment 5 Nicholas Jones (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-05-18 10:48:41 UTC
What are you suggesting exactly? Portage depend on this bloat package?
Comment 6 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2004-05-18 15:59:03 UTC
he was suggesting a neat idea (i.e. a new package) that was taken from the unpack idea used by portage

however, bloat seems to satisfy the aforementioned needs
Comment 7 Elan Ruusamäe 2004-05-19 11:47:52 UTC
i've looked the bloat code. the code itself is pretty bloated (if i understand the meaning of word bloated well -- it's not in dictionary) :)

imho the unpacker mechanism should be simple, so you could look on code and see what exactly is done. this is not true for bloat. dunno why he needs to do all the checks like whether unzip binary really can unzip and so on.

ps: found out that binary named 'unpack' is not free to use, reiserfs has /sbin/unpack ;(
Comment 8 Dave Wickham 2004-05-19 11:56:53 UTC
What do you mean by "see what exactly is done"?

I agree that the checking could be considered to be a bit excessive, but I have had problems with different versions of software using different fags, hence the reason for all the testing of utils.

I agree that the code isn't the best in the world though. There's some crap I'm only just getting round to replacing.
Comment 9 Dave Wickham 2004-05-19 11:57:51 UTC
Er. That should say "flags". Sorry for all the bugzilla spam :-/.
Comment 10 Elan Ruusamäe 2004-05-19 12:55:31 UTC
to comment 8: i meant by seeing and understanding the program flow control...

the issue with different flags should not be present in gentoo.
you can require specific version of util using portage dependancies.

so when adding it to portage, i think the code should not detect and check binaries, but rather some configure script.

actually the program supports config file, so the paths to binaries (with flags) should go there instead.

indeed, author of program probably wanted the program run inplace without having to setup anything.

and i think this discussion is out of scope of this bug :)

Comment 11 Dave Wickham 2004-05-19 13:28:17 UTC
Yeah, that was my intention - I don't actually use Gentoo myself, and originally started it for an RH 7.2.
Comment 12 Brian Harring (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2005-02-28 00:38:20 UTC
bloat...
Worth noting this bug if a universal unpack is ever required, although at this point our unpack function is sufficing.