Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:46:09 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: USE_AUTOEXTRACT option for bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20030306074609.GA95008@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200303060431.h264VAjO082569@green.bikeshed.org> References: <200303060431.h264VAjO082569@green.bikeshed.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:31:10PM -0500, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > I have a need to extract both tar.gz and zip files (one source tarball= and=20 > one patchset) in a port a created for jdk 1.4.1, but there's no good way = to=20 > be able to extract both of them, but I don't think it's very clean to hav= e a=20 > do-extract target when the existing extract targets work fine, but not fo= r=20 > more than one archive at once. > I implemented a USE_AUTOEXTRACT option which extracts files just like= =20 > normal, except it would use the suffix to determine the extraction method= ,=20 > and thus be able to support more than one distribution file format in the= =20 > same port without any further work by the port maintainer. Am I nutty fo= r=20 > thinking of it, or is it possibly a good idea? Another would be somethin= g=20 > like the MASTER_SITES_N and a suffix for "archive type", but that's getti= ng=20 > much more complicated :-) > Here's my implementation. Obviously, it could be improved by people w= ho=20 > have better ideas on how to do it, but I'd like to know if it looks nice= =20 > conceptually. Thanks, everybody! Interesting idea..taking this a bit further, I would assume that the number of ports with a non-standard "extension" is fairly small (i.e. most port distfiles that end in .tar.gz are a gzipped tarball :) Would it be worthwhile to turn this on its head and automatically figure out how to extract all ports, except for the nonstandard ones? Of course, then we'd be left with the negative problem of how to specify the extraction method for those. Would this add any measurable performance penalty? I don't know..someone would need to perform tests. Kris --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+ZvzBWry0BWjoQKURAnFoAJ9K49ScFJ+BWrZ0PUCvmdrzhMTvYQCfYXrO hXbpZkezJRrTvhsFF0v9R28= =h8R/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030306074609.GA95008>