Re: (Re-) Designing extractong-downaloder

[Hartmut Goebel]

Am 23.02.22 um 11:52 schrieb pukkamustard:
> Why use the source from hex.pm at all?

While issue 51061 is about the hex.pm importer and the rebar build 
system, this thread in only about the extracting downloader :-)

> The hex.pm metadata.config file does not seem to exactly specify the
> upstream source. We would need some heuristics to figure this out. But
> maybe we could find a heuristic that works well enough? This would solve
> the double-archive problem.

FMPOV, hex.pm is one important valid distribution point for erlang and 
elixir packages. Like PypPi is for Python and CPAN is for Perl. So we 
should support defining this as a packages source, which can also be 
used for checking for updates much easier than any git repository or 
git-based forge.

Some of the packages I've investigated so far are easier to build from 
hex.pm than from github. E.g. some github repos contain a „rebar“ binary 
(which needs to be deleted by a snippet when defining the source), while 
the corresponding hex.pm package can be used as-is.

Regarding heuristics: Since build should be reproducible, a source 
definition must not use any heuristics. Anyhow this might be useful for 
the hex.pm importer.

--
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |