Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:54:52 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/unzip Makefile unzip.1 unzip.c Message-ID: <200801141554.52748.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <478BC55B.2060202@FreeBSD.org> References: <200801080800.m08806jI012963@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080114181154.GA2286@dragon.NUXI.org> <478BC55B.2060202@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 14 January 2008 03:26:03 pm Kris Kennaway wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > > >> If we have to special case ports to deal with variant zipfiles that cannot > >> be processed by /usr/bin/unzip then it gets messier because we have to > >> account for some ports being satisfied with USE_ZIP=yes meaning > >> /usr/bin/unzip and some still requiring /usr/ports/archivers/unzip. I'd > >> prefer not to have to add those workarounds. > > > > This seems quite easy... > > > > For those four-ish ports 's/USE_ZIP/USE_INFOZIP/' > > That's what I meant by "special case". I don't like adding special case > variables to bsd.*.mk for the benefit of a tiny number of ports; that > file is already cluttered enough. Also, if there are ports distfiles that unzip doesn't handle then there are likely other zip files in the wild that users may run into that it won't handle either. In that case, I think the ports distfiles are a good canary for seeing if unzip is suitable for widespread use. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200801141554.52748.jhb>