Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Flavien Bridault <f.bridault AT fra.net>]

Le jeudi 28 juillet 2005 à 08:22 -0700, Andrew a écrit :
> > 
> > On a different tangent, in the example PRE_BUILD, you have:
> > 
> > unpack_file ''
> > 
> > Is that correct?  Shouldn't there be something else on that line, like a 
> > reference to the file?  If not, then shouldn't the two single quote marks 
> > be 
> > removed?
> > 
> 
> Yes actually that is correct. unpack_file's parameter is the n part of
> SOURCEn. By convention we count SOURCE SOURCE2 SOURCE3 ... so the first
> value is the empty string. The function uses the parameter to expand
> the various SOURCE, SOURCE_URL and SOURCE_GPG values.
> 
> It is true that in bash an uninitialized variable is the empty string so
> you could remove the quotes and it would still work, just style I think,
> not that gurus have to adopt our suggested style.
> 
> David, can the doc be updated to include more explaination on unpack_file?
> I think maybe if theres a second real source in a spell, "unpack_file 2"
> could be used and it would be more obvious than an oddly place ''.
> 
> -Andrew
> 
> 

Sorry for coming so late in the discussion, but I only read the
documentation now. I'm always afraid about GPG, I don't know why... :p

I just have two remarks about the extra development needed to get a
spell working with GPG checking. I guess all of the design have been
discussed during a long time, but I didn't participate in the
discussion, so these are kind of 'newbie' remarks ;-)

First, in a effort of getting as simple as possible, the :
SOURCE2_URL=${SOURCE_URL}.asc 
SOURCE2_IGNORE=signature

is not really straightforward. Why not have a SOURCEn_SIG instead, as we
have a SOURCEn_GPG ? I'm sure there is a good reason for it, but from a
'user' point of view this is really not obvious. 

Then, the extra work that should done in PRE_BUILD seems also useless.
Would it be not possible in sorcery that if SOURCEn_SIG and SOURCEn_GPG
are detected, that this new unpack function would be automatically
called ?

What really afraid me is that all gurus convert all their spells, and
that, six months later, a API change is decided and all this extra stuff
would become obsolete. And I don't have to explain how painful the API
changes are. ;-)
I obvioulsy understand that what I propose could not be done in two
hours, but this would *really* be better to remain as simple as possible
at the beginning, so that nobody would like to change it later.

My two cents,
-- 
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Flavien Bridault
Source Mage GNU/Linux - Disk Section Guru

irc: vlaaad
jabber: vlaaad AT amessage.be

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part