Re: Comments on deb-support-without-dpkg.patch
Hi, This patch although useful has certain drawbacks and I don't think it is ready to replace the use of dpkg as-is. i never thought so. 1) To use the patch one has to install development tools (i.e. binutils). This is not a major problem but it is still annoying - especially for non-developers. 2) Open=%cd %p#uar differs in behaviour from Open=%cd %p#deb - in my opinion Open=%cd %p#deb is better. However, the deb script may be modified to use ar when it detects that dpgk is missing. I think this would be the best thing to do. 3) The View command is highly unportable. Are you willing to improve your patch ? no, at least not in the near future. it works for me as-is, and i have no time and resources for testing and improving it for other systems. anyway of course it should only be used when dpkg is not available. in that case, it's still far more better than nothing... about the differences to dpkg - i've never seen the #deb thing working, as i dont have debian (or other dpkg-based distros) installed. A'rpi ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Comments on deb-support-without-dpkg.patch
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Arpi wrote: This patch although useful has certain drawbacks and I don't think it is ready to replace the use of dpkg as-is. i never thought so. 1) To use the patch one has to install development tools (i.e. binutils). This is not a major problem but it is still annoying - especially for non-developers. 2) Open=%cd %p#uar differs in behaviour from Open=%cd %p#deb - in my opinion Open=%cd %p#deb is better. However, the deb script may be modified to use ar when it detects that dpgk is missing. I think this would be the best thing to do. 3) The View command is highly unportable. Are you willing to improve your patch ? no, at least not in the near future. it works for me as-is, and i have no time and resources for testing and improving it for other systems. anyway of course it should only be used when dpkg is not available. in that case, it's still far more better than nothing... about the differences to dpkg - i've never seen the #deb thing working, as i dont have debian (or other dpkg-based distros) installed. dpkg is freely available for download. I never used it myself but I found it and tested the deb script as well as your patch. As you said above your patch is supposed to kick in if dpkg is not available... The way you implemented it uar is used all the time even if dpkg is present. I might try to implement 2 myself when I have more time - it doesn't seem to be too hard anyway. IMO, this patch is not ready for inclusion in MC. Still I don't think your work is in vain - I never knew that .deb files are just ordinary archives and it is possible to manipulate them trough ar. Based on this knowledge I will try to provide a better .deb handler . ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: Comments on deb-support-without-dpkg.patch
Hi, dpkg is freely available for download. I never used it myself but I found it and tested the deb script as well as your patch. As you said above but i'm lazy... and i'm sitting on macosx, not linux... (dunno if dpkg is available for osx, maybe yes, but dunno) your patch is supposed to kick in if dpkg is not available... The way you implemented it uar is used all the time even if dpkg is present. i know. it as just a quick dirty hack, and a proof-of-concept that dpkg is not required to open/extract deb archives (just like cpio is enough for rpm files) I might try to implement 2 myself when I have more time - it doesn't seem to be too hard anyway. IMO, this patch is not ready for inclusion in MC. Still I don't think your work is in vain - I never knew that .deb files are just ordinary archives and it is possible to manipulate them trough ar. Based on this knowledge I will try to provide a better .deb handler . ok, thanks A'rpi ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
