Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:40:40 +0200 From: Julien LAFFAYE <jlaffaye@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 181154 for review Message-ID: <AANLkTilxPpto02RO4tkmuGA9TtaCte6Wc6-iOTW_Z_B7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim43YyI5TgcmZUDu1g6MOj3nzqpZCiB7awj70gB@mail.gmail.com> References: <201007182159.o6ILxBSq023260@repoman.freebsd.org> <AANLkTim43YyI5TgcmZUDu1g6MOj3nzqpZCiB7awj70gB@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense for extract_package to be in libpkg, > because it's basically a utility function that would be used by > pkg_add and pkg_complete? pkg_add will deal with both regular and complete packages. pkg_complete is only for the creation of complete packages. But it wont hurt to move this function into libpkg I suppose. > > Also, Tim and I discussed initializing the decompressor only once > because it would greatly simplify the code in libpkg today, and would > eliminate wasted CPU cycles used when initializing the decompressor > each time a metadata file is extracted from the archive object. Totally agree. Which line(s) of code are you referring to? Because I'm not aware of re-initializing it every time (maybe a high level libarchive function?) > > Sorry to be a wanker on this too, but considering that all of the code > moved over from extract.c is basically `new code', could it be cleaned > up for style(9)? Yeah, I tried to fix the code while moving it but I must admit that it wasn't the first goal. Wanted to check if the whole function worked, eww :p Again, any particular rules of style(9) in mind ? > > Thanks, > -Garrett >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilxPpto02RO4tkmuGA9TtaCte6Wc6-iOTW_Z_B7>