Re: Possible abuse of dpkg-deb -z9 for xz compressed binary packages
On 09/04/2014 04:58 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 10:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Christian Kastner wrote:
>>> That is the key question, and I believe considering the worst possible
>>> cost -- a package that cannot be unpacked, as in #757740 -- the
>>> trade-off is not worth it.
>>
>> IIRC, I asked last year already to patch dpkg to limit the
>> xz compression levels to -7 (and treat -8 and -9 as -7).
>> That was per-arch and mostly with buildd concerns, but this
>> bugreport shows that it’s high time we do that, as those
>> little 64 MiB RAM machines are available for a release
>> architecture (probably several).
>
> A per-arch limit would not address the problem with installing arch:all
> packages.
>
> Limiting the compression level to 7 by silently clamping higher values
> is also not nice (IMO): it prevents people using very high compression
> for internal packages.
>
> What about a lintian warning (error, whatever) instead?
>
> Ansgar
What about more simply filling bugs for those packages where it seems
inappropriate to use z9 instead of (wrongly) generalizing? :)
On 09/04/2014 05:40 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I support that...
I don't.
> lintian warning for non-default compression
> lintian (auto-reject) error for > 7
Please don't do this.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: