Bug#54002: PROPOSAL] permit use of bzip2 for source packages
On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 09:42:29AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jan 15, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 01:12:16AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> >
> > > To have a dpkg in stable that can extract unstable source packages is a
> > > must. Don't you think?
> >
> > Yes, I certainly do, and therefore, I think that we can't allow .bz2 source
> > packages until at least woody+1.
>
> The code to extract bz2 source packages is trivial and requires no
> user intervention; it's ~ a dozen lines of Perl. Surely it could be
> introduced into potato's dpkg without any real problems.
>
> I agree we shouldn't allow potato dpkg to *create* bz2 packages, since
> other existing tools can't cope with them in that format. But
> unpacking is a different matter entirely.
>
> (n.b. this could also be handled with a source dependency, I think, if
> things like apt-get source will respect them soon... afaik only buildd
> and friends care at the moment.)
a) the RIGHT way is more than 12 lines of perl code. "the right way" means
that we wont have to do anything but add three small entries in a hash to
allow other compression types. So you are incorrect on the size of this
change.
b) It is not just a matter of the dpkg tools, nor the users of them. As I
said before, the archive scripts are not paying attention, and may perhaps
choke badly if some one does decide to upload a package for potato using
this compressions (as opposed to returning a REJECT with the proper
notice).
The proper thing for now is to possibly add a check in dpkg-source for
other than .gz compression, and error out with a reasonably generic note
about it.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: