Re: Switching default dpkg-deb compressor to xz

["John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell" <johnandsara2@cox.net>]

Ben what basis do you have against .gz ?

And I'd love to know if it won't cause dependancy problems when 
someone has more than one debian they are dealing with.

I doubt it's as simple as stated.

What's wrong with saying so?

And yes I do think there are some that would inject problems (such as 
killing init for a new startup that isn't compatible).

There are all kinds of proposals continually that are unwise.  And 
this one has been complained against and re-submitted often already.

So why shouldn't I repeat past complaints others have made on previous 
posts.

I think your singling me out.


Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 21:53 -0400, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell
> wrote:
> > I'm complaining.
> >
> > Why are you fixing something that isn't broken and isn't an issue ?
>
> It's not broken, but there is an issue: it's getting hard to fit a
> generally useful set of packages and tasks on CD#1, and xz compression
> would make this easier.  In general, xz can achieve substantially better
> compression ratios than gzip, with little extra cost in decompression
> time.
>
> > Are you trying to cause problems with free software?
> > Are you playing favorites?
>
> What basis do you have for making such accusations?
>
> > It's too new to say if it has no long term problems (ie, such as 
> > support issues).
>
> xz has been supported in Debian for some time, with no problems that I'm
> aware of.
>
> > How is shipping (ie kernel) in all three of .gz, and .bz2,
> > and in .xz saving anyone on either size any time or effort?
> > It isn't.
>
> Er... kernel.org does that, not Debian.
>
> Ben.
>
> > I still think Compress is all the rage and the best of
> > end all solutions :)
> >
> >
> > Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm planning to switch dpkg-deb default
> > > compressor from gzip to xz, as there seemed to be consensus that was