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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to