Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 18:45:09
Message-Id: 1210272301.26658.6.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage by Fabian Groffen
1 On K, 2008-05-07 at 15:34 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
2 > On 07-05-2008 16:23:12 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
3 > > This is a plea and also a request for comments on the matter of
4 > > using .tar.lzma tarballs or not, and for what packages this is
5 > > acceptable and for what not.
6 >
7 > Just as a little background:
8 > GNU chose to switch from bzip2 to lzma, for it produces smaller files
9 > (less bandwith) and decompresses faster.
10 >
11 > They no longer provide the bzip2 versions of archives for newer releases
12 > IIRC, so it's either tar.gz or tar.lzma.
13 >
14 > > I'd be happy if some other unpacker is used than lzma-utils - one that
15 > > does not depend on libstdc++ - I'm sure it can be done, heck it's done
16 > > in integrated form in some other projects in less than a couple
17 > > kilobytes of code for the unpacking from a VFS. Meanwhile please
18 > > consider using the upstream provided .tar.gz tarballs instead and not
19 > > roll patchsets in .lzma just cause you can.
20 >
21 > See above why it might not just be "'cause you can".
23 "and not roll patchsets in .lzma just cause you can". Cause you can
24 applies to patchsets mostly. But using .tar.lzma instead of .tar.gz is
25 also a "because they are available and therefore I can use it"
26 neglecting the issues of
28 a) on-disk format is supposedly not even finalized; high potential
29 breakage of packages in existing ebuilds once lzma-utils gets updated
30 b) The currently used decompressor package links to libstdc++ (and
31 portage uses lzma, not lzmadec) unconditionally for most components
32 c) Potential security issues; details needed, but for other reasons it
33 makes sense to ban .tar.lzma's until a new C only rewritten lzma-utils
34 comes along anyway
35 d) too early adoption in critical system packages - once above issues
36 are solved, higher levels should be using it first, before critical
37 system packages (for example shows in the circular dep hell with m4)
38 e) It has been suggested the support should have been added with new
39 EAPI instead of local build deps (some of which are missing, for
40 instance in the hand-rolled for-no-reason-whatsoever .tar.lzma format
41 net-tools doesn't have a dep in addition to using lzma for no good
42 reason)
44 Probably some more.
45 Base-system, please stop using .tar.lzma for now, thank you.
48 --
49 Mart Raudsepp
50 Gentoo Developer
51 Mail: leio@g.o
52 Weblog:


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de>