On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:39:16AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > David Leverton wrote: > > 2008/9/5 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler > >> for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name. > > > > But is it so much simpler as to justify adding a special > > gitweb-specific hack to the package managers? > > Well, it's not much different from the existing file extension logic > that's already built into the unpack function. I think what really > matters is whether or not the majority of people see it as a useful > extension.
I'm wondering why would one fetch a tarball instead of using git.eclass which is much better for both upstream and users (in terms of bandwidth and resources usage). - ferdy
pgp4InFxofziD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
