On 02/19/2018 04:59 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > Is there a reason you reject '.pkg.tar' (no compression, which makepkg > accepts)?
I don't think there is any utility in supporting uncompressed packages in dbscripts. Anyone who wants to customize this in a non-Arch Linux deployment is free to do so... If someone wants to use some deviant compression type because they're positive it works better on those packaged files, I cannot think of a compelling reason to say "no you're wrong", which is why I listed everything else. > (I also found it curious that you swapped lzo and lrz from the order > the extensions are in in the makepkg source.) makepkg is inconsistent here, I pulled that from the makepkg.conf(5) source. :D -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Description: OpenPGP digital signature