On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 09:20:33PM +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote: > >>I guess we are thinking about different use cases here: verifying a package > >>that can be easily downloaded again in case of corruption, vs decompressing > >>the only copy of an irreplaceable file. > >Indeed. > So you agree that xz is a bad format but you don't mind because it does not > have bad consecuences for your use case. :-( No, I didn't say anything like that. > It seems that the nature of xz does have some bad effects for at least one > Debian package: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=499489 > > "Just comparing the number of options that might affect the output > in gzip with xz should give a good idea of the possible complexity of > doing this for xz. Hopefully many of the more esoteric options (like > compressor filter chains) are not used in producing many files. > In general, xz being a container format makes it much harder, I think." pristine-tar is special. > I am not discussing a concrete use case. Well, you've wrote so many words about it. > More than 80% of GNU packages do not release xz tarballs That's an interesting twist of numbers. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature