Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > OK, I think we're closer than I previously thought on the issue of format. > I have always felt the bulk of the package should be in a 'classic' gzipped > tar file (this probably wasn't clear), but that some sort of extension is > required to tack on additional meta-data (especially the crypto signature). > I had thought you were arguing against anything that wasn't exactly a tar.gz > file readable by the old LRP install scripts.
I was. Then it occurred to me that the package could remain unsullied and the signature and the package could be combined into a *.tar.gz (*.srp) file. This has several advantages: * The package is *.srp which means that programs expecting *.lrp won't be messed up by it. * The *.srp contains the *.lrp - which means that programs used to *.lrp will work just fine once the package is removed from the archive. * Modifying scripts to work with *.srp only requires preprocessing - potentially adding just one function prior to extracting the *.lrp file. * Getting a *.srp to work with old systems means only extracting the package and discarding the signature and *.srp archive. This format is unique in that the signature is taken against the archive itself - and thus cannot modify the archive. Other extensions would be in the *.lrp in /var/lib/lrpkg/<pkg>.* files... _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
