On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> I know you mentioned "modules" down the road, but this particular bit >> is possibly more useful to a wider audience, so it could be beneficial >> that way. >> >> call it "checkpkgdeps", perhaps ? > > It certainly could be used standalone. However, its primary use is to > be part of a larger test suite - a modular checkpkg. It doesn't do > certain things, for example it doesn't extract the package the way > checkpkg does. To be standalone and useful, it would need be armored > with the unpacking code. The unpacking code is already there in > checkpkg, perhaps we can reuse it?
If you like. Or you could use the system pkgtrans on a pkg file, but fail if gzipped. Or you could make it a little plainer and just expect a directory, and let the caller deal with providing the package in directory format. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
