| 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". |
| 22 |
|
| 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 |
| 27 |
|
| 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) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Probably some more. |
| 45 |
Base-system, please stop using .tar.lzma for now, thank you. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 50 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 51 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 52 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |
Archives