Bug 399307 – DEPEND on unpackager should be automatically added depending on file extension in SRC_URI

• Product: Gentoo Hosted Projects
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Description Pacho Ramos 2012-01-18 19:08:21 UTC]

I couldn't find a bug for this :-/

Currently, we need to manually DEPEND, for example, on app-arch/xz-utils when our distfiles use .xz. Would be nice if this DEPEND could be added automatically when needed instead of needing to add this DEPEND on a lot of ebuilds

Thanks  a lot

Reproducible: Always

[Comment 1 Ciaran McCreesh 2012-01-18 19:20:34 UTC]

Alas, having a file extension in SRC_URI doesn't mean something will want to extract that using 'unpack'.

I think there's a bug around somewhere for adding a magic/unpack-xz dep so you don't need to hard-code the package name, at least (and so package manglers can use other tools).

[Comment 2 SpanKY 2012-01-18 20:57:13 UTC]

i believe you mean bug 399019

[Comment 3 Pacho Ramos 2012-04-28 08:42:17 UTC]

Then, should we simply use unpacker.eclass for xz? Looks like this problem is already handled by it :-/

[Comment 4 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2012-11-26 05:10:14 UTC]

Initial implementation of automatic unpack dependencies is now available in Portage:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commitdiff;h=44f2b8f9603964abe230cfe8ef75831a82855da5

What syntax in SRC_URI should be used to specify that a file should not be unpacked and dependency on unpacker should not be automatically added?
Maybe "-" after filename?
Example:
SRC_URI="
    http://example.com/file1.gz
    http://example.com/file2.bz2 -
    http://example.com/file3_.xz -> file3.xz -
    doc? ( http://example.com/file4.zip - http://example.com/file5.lha )
    examples? ( http://example.com/file6.rar - )
"
In the above example, only "${unpacker_for_gz} doc? ( ${unpacker_for_lha} )" would be automatically added to DEPEND.

[Comment 5 Michał Górny 2013-03-28 18:02:12 UTC]

Is there a reason to keep this one open? I feel like we're not supposed to make PMS reliant on any specific package names.

[Comment 6 Ulrich Müller 2014-05-16 20:39:39 UTC]

(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #5)
> Is there a reason to keep this one open? I feel like we're not supposed to
> make PMS reliant on any specific package names.

Closing.