| Summary: | generic unpacker script | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Elan Ruusamäe <glen> |
| Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | dave, radek |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: | quickly put one up based on lesspipe.sh | ||
|
Description
Elan Ruusamäe
2004-05-15 04:31:10 UTC
maybe we should add http://bloat.sourceforge.net/ to portage? Created attachment 31468 [details]
quickly put one up based on lesspipe.sh
cute idea, actually yeah, rather than writing our own, why not just add bloat ;) What are you suggesting exactly? Portage depend on this bloat package? 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 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 ;( 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. Er. That should say "flags". Sorry for all the bugzilla spam :-/. 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 :) Yeah, that was my intention - I don't actually use Gentoo myself, and originally started it for an RH 7.2. bloat... Worth noting this bug if a universal unpack is ever required, although at this point our unpack function is sufficing. |
