Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 356539 - Create a meta ebuild to pull in needed packagers/unpackagers for file-roller, ark...
Summary: Create a meta ebuild to pull in needed packagers/unpackagers for file-roller,...
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] GNOME (show other bugs)
Hardware: All All
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Freedesktop bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: Inclusion
: 440488 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-26 05:17 UTC by Raffaello D. Di Napoli
Modified: 2013-04-27 19:58 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Attachments
New app-arch/file-roller-backends-2.32.0 (file-roller-backends-2.32.ebuild,1.00 KB, text/plain)
2011-02-26 05:19 UTC, Raffaello D. Di Napoli
Details
Modified app-arch/file-roller-2.32.1 to RDEPEND on app-arch/file-roller-backends (file-roller-2.32.1.ebuild,1.50 KB, text/plain)
2011-02-26 05:24 UTC, Raffaello D. Di Napoli
Details
Patch for the above on current (file-roller-2.32.1.ebuild.patch,1.28 KB, patch)
2011-02-26 05:25 UTC, Raffaello D. Di Napoli
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-02-26 05:17:41 UTC
One day I was checking file-roller’s source code to see if it could use 7zip instead of unrar, for RAR files. As I was doing that, I noticed that all the file-roller’s USE flags could be in a neat package, like telepathy-connection-managers for example.

So I collected the backend-related USE flags in file-roller, and created a new package app-arch/file-roller-backends, which has a little more options:

IUSE="7z ace arj +bzip2 cab cpio +gzip iso jar lha lzip +lzma lzop rar rzip stf +tar zip zoo"

I added a + for formats that most people would be surprised if they weren’t supported.

I checked carefully the source code (it was actually version 2.30, but I think if anything changed, is for more supported formats, not less) to see which programs could be used, providing alternative RDEPENDs.

If this ever makes it to the tree, you might consider adding in pkg_postinst a descriptive message about setting USE flags on file-roller-backends instead of file-roller, like the message for gst-plugins-meta.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-02-26 05:19:52 UTC
Created attachment 263873 [details]
New app-arch/file-roller-backends-2.32.0
Comment 2 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-02-26 05:24:20 UTC
Created attachment 263875 [details]
Modified app-arch/file-roller-2.32.1 to RDEPEND on app-arch/file-roller-backends

This has a new RDEPEND package, and no list of additional packages the user might want to install as backends.
Comment 3 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-02-26 05:25:05 UTC
Created attachment 263877 [details, diff]
Patch for the above on current
Comment 4 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-03-13 05:19:10 UTC
I only noticed now several inaccuracies in my opening comment, due to too much time since I actually last used the official ebuild.

(In reply to comment #0)
> […] I noticed that all the file-roller’s USE flags […]

I actually meant “…the packages mentioned at the end of file-roller’s installation”.


> So I collected the backend-related USE flags in file-roller

Ditto.
Comment 5 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2011-03-13 12:41:08 UTC
I disagree with having an ebuild simply to depend on some other packages, maybe we could add some more USE flags to file-roller ebuild to install needed tools (at least that USE flags that are already "global")
Comment 6 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-03-13 13:56:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> I disagree with having an ebuild simply to depend on some other packages

Why? I thought that was done pretty much whenever possible:
  media-plugins/gst-plugins-meta
  net-voip/telepathy-connection-managers
  x11-base/xorg-drivers
plus the various GNOME, KDE and Xfce meta packages…

It seems to me that whenever there’s a bunch of runtime-only dependencies, Gentoo’s way is to have a separate ebuild, instead of forcing users to recompile just for a single changed USE flag with *no* effect on the package itself.


> maybe we could add some more USE flags to file-roller ebuild to install
> needed tools

Okay, but that’s exactly what I wanted to avoid, the reason I made a separate ebuild: there’s so many formats (and programs) file-roller can support that if one had to re-emerge file-roller for each new needed USE flag, that would be quite boring. I myself would have had to re-emerge it at least twice since I made this separated backends-ebuild (once was to add lzop, the other I can’t remember).

Also, in case Gentoo ever gets PackageKit integration, this would make file-roller able to install backends much more rapidly (only wait for the backend to compile, not backend + file-roller).


> (at least that USE flags that are already "global")

Yeah, I tried to pick “good” names for the USE flags, but many just weren’t there, so I had to make them up.


If support issues is what’s worrying you, I’m willing and able to maintain (proxy-maintain?) this new package, as well as file-roller itself, since I use it very often.
Comment 7 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2011-04-18 15:40:24 UTC
Will work on it in the future as talked with Gilles
Comment 8 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-04-18 16:32:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> Will work on it in the future as talked with Gilles

Mmm… since I don’t know what you and Gilles said, what work are you referring to? The USE flag names?
Comment 9 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2011-04-18 16:38:40 UTC
The splitting as you originally suggested
Comment 10 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2011-04-18 17:06:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> The splitting as you originally suggested

I thought I already took care of that… I can’t think of many different ways to do it.
Comment 11 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2011-12-17 14:51:44 UTC
@gnome, are you ok with using so many USE flags as suggested by Raffaello in that file-roller-backends ebuild?
Comment 12 Alexandre Rostovtsev (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2011-12-17 17:50:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> @gnome, are you ok with using so many USE flags as suggested by Raffaello in
> that file-roller-backends ebuild?

Yes. This seems to be an acceptable workaround until portage gets usable packagekit support.
Comment 13 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2011-12-17 21:04:45 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > @gnome, are you ok with using so many USE flags as suggested by Raffaello in
> > that file-roller-backends ebuild?
> 
> Yes. This seems to be an acceptable workaround until portage gets usable
> packagekit support.

Personally I think this should be implemented if possible in file-roller-3 instead of 2.32 as I don't think there will be many more revisions for 2.32. Then, as I am still running with Gnome2, won't be able to take care of this just now, probably in the future.. :-/
Comment 14 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-01-08 19:13:07 UTC
There is a problem:
See for example to "rar" -> it will RDEPEND on either p7zip or unrar... but unrar, if I remember correctly, is unable to create rar packages (only unpacks it) while installing app-arch/rar should be ok for both tasks 

Not sure how to handle this compressors/uncompressors options :-/
Comment 15 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-04-29 09:17:24 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> There is a problem:
> See for example to "rar" -> it will RDEPEND on either p7zip or unrar... but
> unrar, if I remember correctly, is unable to create rar packages (only
> unpacks it) while installing app-arch/rar should be ok for both tasks 
> 
> Not sure how to handle this compressors/uncompressors options :-/

Any idea about how to solve this problem? (this reminds me to similar problem with gst-plugins-meta but, in that case, we could RDEPEND in proper encoders when "encode" USE flag is set, but I see no flag for compressors)
Comment 16 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-11-11 13:52:52 UTC
*** Bug 440488 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-11-11 13:54:06 UTC
This looks to be more general than only file-roller, let's see if freedesktop maintainers agree with a meta ebuild to pull in needed deps
Comment 18 Gilles Dartiguelongue gentoo-dev 2012-11-12 17:50:26 UTC
Why not base-system ?
Comment 19 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-11-12 21:20:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
> Why not base-system ?

No idea, I was thinking in GUI tools only... if you think base-system should be involved also, fine (feel free to CC them or I will CC them if we agree)
Comment 20 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2012-11-13 00:40:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
> Why not base-system ?

I don’t know right now if base-system is normally part of @system or it can be pulled in by any package in it, but I would avoid making a change that can cause 3-10 additional packages to be pulled in @system.
Comment 21 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2012-11-13 00:41:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Why not base-system ?
> 
> I don’t know right now if base-system is normally part of @system or it can
> be pulled in by any package in it, but I would avoid making a change that
> can cause 3-10 additional packages to be pulled in @system.

Nevermind, I thought I read sys-apps/baselayout :)
Comment 22 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2013-04-17 17:52:45 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
> Why not base-system ?

Will CC them also then
Comment 23 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2013-04-27 09:04:32 UTC
call it 'app-arch/app-arch' just to mess with people

i'm indifferent to the proposal at hand
Comment 24 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2013-04-27 14:07:28 UTC
I didn’t realize the name of such package was being discussed. How about app-arch/backends-meta ?
Comment 25 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2013-04-27 17:16:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #24)

i really wouldn't mind calling it 'app-arch/app-arch'.  but if you want something different, i'd suggest 'app-arch/archivers-meta'.
Comment 26 Raffaello D. Di Napoli 2013-04-27 19:58:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #24)
> 
> i really wouldn't mind calling it 'app-arch/app-arch'.  but if you want
> something different, i'd suggest 'app-arch/archivers-meta'.

That sounds even better, because even just ${PN} alone (“archivers-meta”) makes sense.