On 10/18/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/18/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/10/18, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 10/17/07, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the cleanest way to use xdelta api? For example, we use libarchive instead of bsdtar, libdownload instead of wget (even though there is the XferCommand trick), a md5 driver instead of md5sum command, etc
Technically yes, but I think in this case this is the only option available - either xdelta has no API, or using it is like a few hundred lines... I can't remember which
Xdelta3 does have an API: http://code.google.com/p/xdelta/wiki/ProgrammingGuide
Well, color me stupid! I didn't research this at all.
So yeah, I'll side with Chantry here - it's probably better to use the actual API rather than external apps like that. Here's a good reason - in a "omg panic" situation where libs are broken, pacman.static can still work, but not if it has to call external apps like this that could be broken.
Thoughts but no for sure answers, I'll let those who are actually writing the code decide. 1. Using the API does introduce yet another dependency for pacman...our ldd output is starting to get a bit lengthy for what I feel should be a low level tool. If someone doesn't ever use the delta features of pacman, they would still have to have xdelta installed (because of the dynamic link at runtime, and yet some more mem usage). 2. xdelta3 tarball was chmodded all wrong. Please tell me the developer just made a mistake here, otherwise it is very windows focused. And the configure script is no longer there... 3. In an "omg panic" situation, I highly doubt someone would want to use delta packages anyway, I'd rather be absolutely positive I was getting the real stuff. -Dan