Wouldn't this break package extensions that are not *.tar.{gz,bz2}? I personally do not like this, as my Arch fork uses .ipkg (I find pkg.tar.$COMPRESSION very ugly, IMHO). Perhaps tar could simply tar the archive and a setting in makepkg.conf would allow for any method of compression? Example: makepkg.conf: COMPRESS='gzip -9' Makepkg: bsdtar -cf "$pkg_file" $comp_files * $COMPRESS "$pkg_file" Of course, you would need to deal with renaming it from ${EXTENSION}.gz back to $EXTENSION. Some error checking would be nice too. Regarding repo-add, it could simply `tar -xf` and it would be extracted if `tar` understands that type of compression. It could also check with `file`, perhaps. Cheers, Teran (sega01) PS: Why is bsdtar used instead of GNU tar? On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 06:03, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Inspired by commit 7e8f1469c4168875b54956d63884b8583ce99e38, use our given PKGEXT or SRCEXT to determine what method of compression to use on the package we create. If the extension is invalid, this should fall back to creating a non-compressed tar file.
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org>
Looks nice, and repo-add and pacman could already handle tar.gz and tar.bz2 transparently. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev