Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 13:35:39
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage by Mart Raudsepp
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.
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.
10 They no longer provide the bzip2 versions of archives for newer releases
11 IIRC, so it's either tar.gz or tar.lzma.
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.
20 See above why it might not just be "'cause you can".
22 > coreutils and linux-headers come to my mind out of system packages right
23 > now. I'm sure more dragons await me.
25 m4, that one gave me some headaches, because lzma-utils required some
26 eautoreconf, which introduced a nice cycle.
29 --
30 Fabian Groffen
31 Gentoo on a different level
32 --
33 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: lzma tarball usage Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>