On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
> If the repo file already exists, we allow specifying the symlink instead
> of the tarball itself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com>
> ---
> I'm fairly sure this is a safe use of readlink, since it doesn't involve any of
> the flags for canonicalizing paths. I was able to test it on OSX with great
> success.
This page (http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/029) also suggests using
`find -printf %l`. I think it is more about not having a readlink at
all that burned us in the past (the actual BSDs?)

Part of me says this still doesn't feel quite right. What if I just
*move* my repo to repo.db? Is there a way to get bsdtar to use the
same compression as another file, or some trick with file, like what
we do in makepkg (search for 'application/', that will allow us to do
this?

> *scripts/repo-add.sh.in | * *5 ++++-
> *1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in
> index 8865188..3581765 100644
> --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in
> +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in
> @@ -582,7 +582,10 @@ done
> *if (( success )); then
> * * * *msg "$(gettext "Creating updated database file '%s'")" "$REPO_DB_FILE"
>
> - * * * case "$REPO_DB_FILE" in
> + * * * # allows for syntax such as: repo-add repo.db /path/to/pkg
> + * * * [[ -L "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]] && resolved=$(readlink "$REPO_DB_FILE")
> +
> + * * * case "${resolved:-$REPO_DB_FILE}" in
> * * * * * * * **.@(db|files).tar.gz) *TAR_OPT="z" ;;
> * * * * * * * **.@(db|files).tar.bz2) TAR_OPT="j" ;;
> * * * * * * * **.@(db|files).tar.xz) *TAR_OPT="J" ;;
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
>
>