Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: For future EAPIs, we can have the package manager define super-magic/thing-i-use-to-unzip. ++ One could argue that having package manager support for extracting 7z is also not sane, of course, but that's something we're stuck with in current EAPIs. Or we could allow

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: For future EAPIs, we can have the package manager define super-magic/thing-i-use-to-unzip. ++ One could argue that having package manager support for extracting 7z is also not sane, of course, but that's something we're stuck with in current EAPIs. Or we could allow

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:45:38 -0400 Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Couldn't the ebuild be wrong? For example, if the package manager > uses fancy-unzip-replacement to unzip packages, but the ebuild > depends on unzip, then wouldn't it fail? It seems like we're trying > to have ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:08 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could someone explain why manually doing work is better than automatically detecting the deps? This sounds like an argument against automation, and I'm not following it. Sometimes the magic wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 20:25 Tue 15 Jul , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:08 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could someone explain why manually doing work is better than > > automatically detecting the deps? This sounds like an argument > > against automation, and I'm not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:23:08 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could someone explain why manually doing work is better than > automatically detecting the deps? This sounds like an argument > against automation, and I'm not following it. Sometimes the magic will be wrong. For exam

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Donnie Berkholz
\On 20:10 Tue 15 Jul , Patrick Börjesson wrote: > On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts: > > Yes. I think that's something which should be done manually. > > Indeed, the correct solution would be to state the deps manually in each > ebuild that requires the dep. But in thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Patrick Börjesson
On 2008-07-15 21:40, Tiziano Müller uttered these thoughts: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible > > solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage > > automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching. > > A mapp

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: auto-detection of unpack dependencies

2008-07-15 Thread Tiziano Müller
Marius Mauch wrote: > As a result of Cardoes earlier mail we talked a bit about possible > solutions in #gento-portage, and I suggested to let portage > automatically inject the deps based on SRC_URI pattern matching. > A mapping of extensions and their unpack deps would be kept in the tree > (e.g