On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 09:43:08PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > I have no objection. Perhaps (but I think you have it all figured out) > just a comment or note, don't know, about the probable difference in the > tarball name (with orig) and the source directory name... > ISTR that we have other .orig tarballs from debian - certainly, libpaper, but probably others. I've never been very keen on encouraging people to expect that a tarball name will match the directory name (it is desirable, but there are too many out in the wild which do not match). Where there is a missing version, I tend to agree with noting that (my beloved biber gets a second mention in two posts here ;) but I'm not sure that it is necessary for everything.
Bottom line: if users were not paying attention and untarred without '-v' (or the equivalent for zip files) and now cannot work out which directory is the one they want, then we perhaps ought to mention it. For people who have been encouraged to write their own scripts, code based on 'tar -tvf | head' is the way I recommend. I'm also sure that people could use something like (untested) 'touch now ; tar -xf /path/to/tarball ; find -type d -newer now -maxdepth 1' if they prefer not to deal with the vagaries of individual tarball packaging to work out the directory name in a script. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
