Previously sparc porters wrote:
For this reason, we should not allow arbitrary compression tools to be
used.
Let me give another good reason why using a uncompress.sh script is
something I will never accept: it means that unpacking a package in
an arbitrary location is no longer a guaranteed
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Let me give another good reason why using a uncompress.sh script is
something I will never accept: it means that unpacking a package in
an arbitrary location is no longer a guaranteed safe action, since
uncompress.sh could do something nasty.
You
There's still problems with using pre-depends to make sure bzip2
is installed. It's not exactly what pre-depends was intended for. It's
not going to be pretty if a user tries to remove bzip2 and dselect shoots
up the dependency/conflict screen and marks every single package that was
[I've elected not to Cc: debian-devel]
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 08:32:18PM -0400, Chris Pimlott wrote:
There's still problems with using pre-depends to make sure bzip2
is installed.
If we decide to use bzip2 in this capacity the package should be
required and essential.
--
Raul
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 05:06:34PM -0400, Chris Pimlott wrote:
On 21 Oct 1999, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Of cause policy should encourage to use bzip2 (or gzip if smaller) and
base packages must use tar.gz (or tar.bz2 if bzip2 is in base) so
that one can update debian. Any package using a
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 11:23:24PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Chris Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You would need a switch case statement that tests for all possible
formats that might be allowed.
Having an uncompress.sh the procedure will be identical for all
compressors, just
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 08:32:18PM -0400, Chris Pimlott wrote:
There's still problems with using pre-depends to make sure bzip2
is installed. It's not exactly what pre-depends was intended for. It's
not going to be pretty if a user tries to remove bzip2 and dselect shoots
up the
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 11:23:24PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Chris Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You would need a switch case statement that tests for all possible
formats that might be allowed.
Having an uncompress.sh the procedure
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 06:23:44PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Without that you have to unpack the .deb file, look around for a
data.tar.xxx and make a switch/case over xxx. Each compressor would
need its own entry there and as soon as the third compressor comes up
for debian packages a
Ben Collins writes:
With the current implementation I have, it is a simple matter of adding a
line for each (de)compressor wanted. I think we should choose carefully
what compressions we allow, as it could lead to problems if we don't. For
this reason, we should not allow arbitrary
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Whats complicated about using uncompress.sh instead of gzip and
fallback to gzip if not present?
Tons of things. What about programs called in uncompress.sh -- are
dependancies supposed to be
While this is debated I will upgrade hard drives. The 6 gb is not enough
to continue mirroring debian and debian-non-US anymore. I am only
mirroring i386 and have to usually have to make a delete pass before I can
get all the updates. I can come up with a larger drive but I am thinking
about
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Why not pipe it through uncompress.sh as and if present in the
control.tar.gz?
Why not change to using the shar archive format for our packages?
Because it's overly complicated, and unnecessary.
--
see shy jo
On 21 Oct 1999, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Of cause policy should encourage to use bzip2 (or gzip if smaller) and
base packages must use tar.gz (or tar.bz2 if bzip2 is in base) so
that one can update debian. Any package using a non default
compression must predepend on that compressor, but that
Chris Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 21 Oct 1999, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Of cause policy should encourage to use bzip2 (or gzip if smaller) and
base packages must use tar.gz (or tar.bz2 if bzip2 is in base) so
that one can update debian. Any package using a non default
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Why not pipe it through uncompress.sh as and if present in the
control.tar.gz?
Why not change to using the shar archive format for our packages?
Because it's overly complicated, and unnecessary.
Whats complicated about using
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Whats complicated about using uncompress.sh instead of gzip and
fallback to gzip if not present?
Tons of things. What about programs called in uncompress.sh -- are
dependancies supposed to be fullfilled then? What happens when the script
fails? What if you don't trust
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 12:35:43AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
The control.tar.gz stays that way for the moment, but the data.tar.gz
might be any format the maintainer seems fit.
The control.tar.gz then contains a file called how_to_unpack that
will be used to unpack the data file. Normaly
I saw several discussions and proposals about using bzip2 to compress
instead of gzip to reduce the overal size of Debian.
I am strongly for allowing bzip2 compression into debs and strongly
against forcing it. Also I am against the way how compression is done
at the moment, so heres my
19 matches
Mail list logo
