| 1 |
On 07-05-2008 16:23:12 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is a plea and also a request for comments on the matter of |
| 3 |
> using .tar.lzma tarballs or not, and for what packages this is |
| 4 |
> acceptable and for what not. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Just as a little background: |
| 7 |
GNU chose to switch from bzip2 to lzma, for it produces smaller files |
| 8 |
(less bandwith) and decompresses faster. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
They no longer provide the bzip2 versions of archives for newer releases |
| 11 |
IIRC, so it's either tar.gz or tar.lzma. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I'd be happy if some other unpacker is used than lzma-utils - one that |
| 14 |
> does not depend on libstdc++ - I'm sure it can be done, heck it's done |
| 15 |
> in integrated form in some other projects in less than a couple |
| 16 |
> kilobytes of code for the unpacking from a VFS. Meanwhile please |
| 17 |
> consider using the upstream provided .tar.gz tarballs instead and not |
| 18 |
> roll patchsets in .lzma just cause you can. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
See above why it might not just be "'cause you can". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> coreutils and linux-headers come to my mind out of system packages right |
| 23 |
> now. I'm sure more dragons await me. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
m4, that one gave me some headaches, because lzma-utils required some |
| 26 |
eautoreconf, which introduced a nice cycle. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 31 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives