Peter Volkov wrote:
> This means that every ebuild which uses 'unpack ${A}' should have in
> DEPEND a program which is selected by filename extension of sources. So
> as I understood your initial suggestion was to make this happen
> automatically. And this is very logical as makes ebuilds cleaner and
> more terse. So why did you changed your mind and try to write another
> eclass (which then should sit in the tree forever), to create duplicate
> unpack function instead of just making step you suggested initially? Is
> there any intension to remove unpack logic from package manager? And if
> yes, why?
++
I also was wondering this. And if we add "unpack2()", which could be a
little hard to explain in the documentation, it will need to be there at
least until ebuilds stop using it (when portage gets this functionality
ultimately).
For my uses, I'd rather do deps manually and use the official portage
unpack() until portage has such features in order to keep my ebuilds
looking a bit more clean.
-Joe
