Re: Default compresssion format in pkgsrc & extensions

[Ignatios Souvatzis <is%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 12:13:40PM +0200, Petar Bogdanovic wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 10:14:47PM -0400, William J. Coldwell wrote:
> >
> > On May 3, 2009, at 20:42, Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 04:02:02PM -0700, Jon Buller wrote:
> >>> David Brownlee wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>   First, can we pick a standardised extension for binary packages
> >>>>   which does not change whether the file is gzipped or bzipped?
> >>>>   Something like .tpz? Exposing the compression format in the file
> >>>>   extension is just confusing for no real benefit. It makes mixing
> >>>>   packages with different formats problematic, and as a user of
> >>>>   bzipped packages I've been bitten a few times when pkg_add has
> >>>>   tried to look for a .tgz package as a remote dependency (though
> >>>>   that may have been fixed now)
> >>>
> >>> Might I suggest something even more generic, like .pkg?
> >>
> >> I think this is an excellent idea - ".pkg" is by far the best suffix
> >> -
> >> it tells what it is, and doesn't expose any of the internals, and
> >> won't get confused between naive personal archives of code.
> >
> > .pkg is already standard from NeXTstep to OpenStep to MacOSX
> 
> Why should that be a problem, if the mentioned suffix is not
> associated with a broadly accepted mime-type?

Because it's different from the ${FOO}step (including MacoS-X) .pkg
format, and pkgsrc is available on MacOS-X?

        -is