On Dec 20, 2007, at 06:46, Rainer Müller wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I got one comment in the ticket from Maun Suang. Any other comments from anyone? Anyone else interested in this feature? Anyone think this is a bad idea? Anyone indifferent to it?
I am interested in this feature, but unfortunately I have not had time yet to test the patch :-(
BTW, as we have all these use_foo options, wouldn't it be better we would have something like extract.type which can be set to one of bzip2, gzip, dmg?
I was hoping nobody would bring this up. :)
What happens if someone specifies "use_bzip2 yes" and also "use_dmg yes"?
If you do that, I believe the universe explodes. It is, as you rightly point out, a single extract type that's being selected by these various options. Before writing the patch in the above ticket, I wrote a very long email detailing how I was unhappy with how the selection of the extraction type was being handled, how two separate tasks (decompression and extraction) were being lumped into one command, and how while this was great for things like .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 where a Unix pipeline makes sense, piping the output of the decompression program (gzip or bzip2) into the input of the extraction program (tar), it didn't provide room for growth in the direction of for example .dmg.gz or .dmg.bz2 (which does exist out there among developers who perhaps do not realize that disk images can be compressed) since the .dmg file needs to exist on disk for hdiutil to be able to use it. I was hoping to avoid having to send that email and thereby begin this discussion until after the necessary basic support for extraction from dmgs, as per my ticket, was committed to base.