Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 21:53 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar' suffix. It > contains

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11/13/18 11:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 10:50 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. >>> The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 10:50 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > > > The outer tarball is uncompressed

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 10:55 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/13/18 10:50 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > > > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11/13/18 10:50 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. >> The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. >> >> The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar'

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar' suffix. It > contains (preferably in order

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 09:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > > > The outer tarball is uncompressed

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 10:03 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/13/18 9:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 11/13/18 9:49 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > > > On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > > > > The format

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11/13/18 9:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/13/18 9:49 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. >>> The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. >>> >>> The

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11/13/18 9:49 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. >> The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. >> >> The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar'

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11/11/18 12:53 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar' suffix. It > contains (preferably in order

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 17:51 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 11-11-2018 21:53:33 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > > > The outer tarball is

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On 11-11-2018 21:53:33 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar' suffix. It > contains (preferably in

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 01:21 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote: > Il giorno dom 11 nov 2018 alle ore 22:17 Michał Górny > ha scritto: > > > On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 21:53 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > [...-] > > Of course, one option would be to use ZIP ;-). I wasn't serious there. > Zip archives have

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

Il giorno dom 11 nov 2018 alle ore 22:17 Michał Górny ha scritto: > On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 21:53 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > [...-] > Of course, one option would be to use ZIP ;-). > Zip archives have another big advantage; there is an index of files, so listing the archive contents and

Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 21:53 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. > The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. > > The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar' suffix. It > contains

[RFC] gpkg format proposal v2 (was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format)

Hi, Ok, here's the second version integrating the feedback received. The format is much simpler, based on nested tarballs inspired by Debian. The outer tarball is uncompressed and uses '.gpkg.tar' suffix. It contains (preferably in order but PM should also handle packages with mismatched

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

Il giorno dom 11 nov 2018 alle ore 09:29 Michał Górny ha scritto: > On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 09:37 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > [...] > > > My proposal > > > === > > > > > > Basic format > > > > > > The base of the format

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:29 AM Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 09:37 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > > > The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is quite old. We've made a few > > > incompatible

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:29 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 09:37 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > > + If we can maintain reasonable level of vdb compatibility, the user can > > > even emergency-install a package

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 09:37 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is quite old. We've made a few > > incompatible changes in the past (most notably, allowing non-bzip2 > > compression

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On 11/10/2018 06:37 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny > wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is quite old.  We've made a few > incompatible changes in the past (most notably, allowing

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is quite old. We've made a few > incompatible changes in the past (most notably, allowing non-bzip2 > compression and multi-instance naming) but the core design stayed > the same. I

[gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

Hi, everyone. The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is quite old. We've made a few incompatible changes in the past (most notably, allowing non-bzip2 compression and multi-instance naming) but the core design stayed the same. I think we should consider changing it, for the reasons outlined