#11021: clean up sage-spkg
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jhpalmieri | Owner: tbd
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.7.1
Component: packages | Keywords:
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Kelvin Li | Author: Leif Leonhardy
Merged: | Dependencies:
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:8 ltw]:
> Replying to [comment:6 leif]:
> > Ok, though I wouldn't have changed the "error" message; the previous
one sounds a bit friendlier. (Actually a non-zero status code can have a
couple of reasons there, but I don't mind. ;-) )
>
> A few lines above, there is an error message {{{"Package $PKG_NAME not
found"}}}. So I thought {{{"File SPKG.txt not found in package
$PKG_NAME"}}} would follow the same grammar. But I can change it back, no
problem. :-)
What about ''"Could not extract SPKG.txt."'' or better ''"Package
$PKG_NAME appears to have no SPKG.txt."''?
Redirecting `stderr` '''of the `tar` commands''' to `/dev/null` is a bit
odd there. On the other hand, the presence of `$PKG_SRC` (the spkg file)
itself is checked '''twice''' a few lines above, so a non-zero exit code
of `tar` most probably means either a corrupted tarball or the file to
extract wasn't found. Maybe the proper way would be to first try to list
the file (`tar tf - ... 2>/dev/null`) into some shell variable and check
if it is empty (or, better, list the tarball's whole contents grepping for
`$PKG_NAME/SPKG.txt`), and use `bunzip2 -t ...` to test whether the spkg
is compressed in advance.
Or verify the spkg '''wasn't''' corrupted in case of an error (`$? -ne
0`):
{{{
#!sh
...
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
# Extracting SPKG.txt failed for *some* reason,
# now check if it's simply missing:
if (bunzip2 -c "$PKG_SRC" | tar tf -) &>/dev/null ||
tar tf "$PKG_SRC" &>/dev/null
then
echo "Package $PKG_NAME lacks a description (SPKG.txt file)."
exit 1
else
echo "$PKG_SRC seems to be corrupted. Exiting."
exit 1 # or some other error code
fi
fi
exit 0
fi
}}}
But IMHO a rather minor issue.
[[BR]]
> > (We could e.g. pipe the `tar` output to some sort of `sed -e '/==
Changelog ==/,$d'` and perhaps give some message indicating it was
omitted.
>
> That's pretty hackish in my opinion. It would impose an undocumented
constraint on the format of SPKG.txt, which does not have any formatting
validation otherwise. I'm not sure that truncating SPKG.txt is even
desirable.
`SPKG.txt` files are supposed to have a quite clear structure, with ReST
(section) mark-up (which an spkg reviewer should check btw). If there's no
line matching `== Changelog ==` -- or preferably a more generic, i.e.
robust pattern, nothing would get omitted.
But as I said, I have no opinion on truncating them there.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11021#comment:9>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
