| Summary: | unpack should support .tlz (.tar.lzma shorthand) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Michał Górny <mgorny> |
| Component: | Unclassified | Assignee: | PMS/EAPI <pms> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | esigra |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | 2.2 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 174380 | ||
|
Description
Michał Górny
2009-02-12 08:57:18 UTC
We might want to do .txz as well (for bug 256765). assuming tlz is lzop, that's a dead format and this is a dupe of Bug 249059 if tlz is actually lzma, then ive never seen anyone using that short suffix ... (In reply to comment #2) > if tlz is actually lzma, then ive never seen anyone using that short suffix ... It is LZMA. Such suffix is used by VectorLinux packages (and e.g. vl-mount). And if you're going to say that there's no sense in implementing support for suffix used by some packaging system, let me remind you that I've never seen anything using .tbz2 except for portage. how exactly is that a relevant argument ? tbz2 was born of the tgz idea, and considering we're talking *about portage*, it's only logical that it would support the package format itself uses. at the rate things are moving, xz will probably be out before the next EAPI update which means lzma will die as well all the associated short names. Well, as I agree with your point and don't need that suffix anymore I think we could close the bug as WONTFIX. How bout using SRC_URI arrows to expand the shorthand suffix to the full suffix which unpack knows? |