[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: