Re: Proposal: New source format (was Re: [Fwd: Re: dpkg question])
email@example.com (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 13.05.97 in <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> >> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <email@example.com> writes:
Kai>> Well, yes. Scan the temp dir after unpacking. If it contains one
Kai>> directory and nothing else, that directory is the main package
Kai>> directory. If it contains anything else, the temp dir is the main
Kai>> package dir. Rename the right directory to the right name and
Kai>> place, and if the temp dir is still around, throw it away.
> package A:, in A-1.0.tar.gz;
> % tar zfx A-1.0.tar.gz
> Though this is pathological, I have really seen sources on the net
> distributed like this (though I don't think current packages have
> sources anything this wierd.)
Well, we can do one of two things. We can either say that B _is_ the main
package dir, or if we don't want that, we can recurse until we find
something different than a single dir.
Both are easy.
> Oh yes, pathanmes with .. components would _also_ break the
Of course, those break everything. I'd insist of having no tarballs even
in the Debian source archive that contain those.
A different problem is absolute path names (/X/Y/Z). GNU tar automatically
discards the "/" (which may, in fact, be related to distributions like the
above example) on both tarring and untarring, as far as I remember, unless
you explicitely tell it not to; but other tars don't. So do we insist on
repacking tars with absolute path names?
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .