[Build-common-hackers] Adding support for xz compression in upstream-tarball.mk
Vasudev Kamath
kamathvasudev at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 13:05:33 UTC 2013
Hi Jonas,
On 13:14 Tue 12 Feb , Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Vasudev,
>
> First of all: welcome to the team!
>
> To others here: Vasudev and I are collaborating on a few projects,
> including some packaging where I have introduced him to CDBS. I am
> quite excited that he has chosen to get more involved.
>
> Vasudev has started blogging about how to use CDBS:
> http://copyninja.info/2013/02/new_series_of_posts_on_cdbs_packaging.html
>
> We also hang out pretty regularly at #cdbs on the OFTC.net irc network,
> in case others want to join us there.
Wow thanks for overwhelming welcome jonas :-)
>
>
> Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2013-02-12 08:47:06)
> > I filed a bug[1] yesterday requesting to add support for tar.xz
> > compression in upstream-tarball.mk.
> >
> > I was looking at fixing the issue myself and also fixed it by adding
> > tar.xz in below snippet
> >
> > case "$(cdbs_upstream_received_tarball)" in \
> > *.tar.gz) unpack="gunzip -c";; \
> > *.tar.bz2) unpack="bunzip2 -c"; grep -q '3.0 (quilt)' debian/source/format || uncompress="bunzip2";; \
> > *.tar.xz) unpack="xz -dc";; \
> > *.tar.Z) unpack="uncompress -c"; uncompress="uncompress";; \
> > *.zip) unpack="unzip -q"; uncompress="false"; untar="-d"; nopipe="true";; \
> > *.tar) unpack="cat"; uncompress="true";; \
> > *) echo "Unknown extension for upstream tarball $(cdbs_upstream_received_tarball)"; false;; \
> >
> >
> > But I noticed that in case of repackaging the source upstream-tarball
> > blindly uses gzip compression. If upstream has provided source tarball
> > in xz compression wouldn't this be wrong thing to do? In general isn't
> > it nice to use the source tar in same file format as upstream gives
> > them?
>
> Yes and no: Makes sense to extend to support more "output" formats than
> .tar.gz, and makes sense that target format by default is same as input
> - but only for formats actually supported in Debian.
>
> Current code is not really elegant, and I fear it gets too messy to
> extend much further as-is.
So I will only add an extension .tar.xz and leave repackaging things as
is.
> Arguably the ideal CDBS-centric cleanup would be to properly express the
> various stages as make targets.
>
> ...but arguably the ideal Debian-centric approach would instead be to
> rewrite as self-contained tool, included with the devscripts package or
> maybe standalone and perhaps including a dh_repackage helper binary.
Interesting.
> Another feature that might be interesting to include into such tool
> (pointed out to me by Jérémy Lal when he joined me in packaging
> BasiliskII) is that of ensuring that a repackaging is always identical.
> That should be possible by preserving/resetting timestamps, sorting
> order of content when seeded into tar, and possibly add some options
> like --rsyncable to the compression engine. I never did succeed
> reproducing what Jérémy got working, so ask him for the details if
> interested.
>
I'm not getting what you meant here. Did Jeremy Lal created a repackage
utility? Or he has plans to create one?
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
Connect on ~friendica: copyninja@{frndk.de | vasudev.homelinux.net}
IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net}
GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4 C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/build-common-hackers/attachments/20130221/e8060a05/attachment.pgp>
More information about the Build-common-hackers
mailing list