Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Debian has never expressed any opinion about lzip outside of our project
> mailing lists. The only reason why it's even on our radar is that
> proponents of lzip keep *coming here* and trying to push it on us. Some
> of them are polite about it, and we've had polite conversations as a
> result.
My first message was polite, I think, but it received at least one aggressive
answer.
Also,
I think the issue here it's not just proponents of lzip "coming here",
but
Debian people "going out", in what I reckon can be a conflict of
interest. For
example, in this same thread we can read:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00209.htmlHenrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Now, if a lot of upstream tarballs start to be natively avaiable in .gz
> and .lzip format (no .xz), *then* it becomes interesting to at least
> support lzip for source packages.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00212.htmlRuss Allbery wrote:
> We're very unlikely to adopt lzip as a native upstream tarball
> format until it is in very widespread use elsewhere.
And when Octave switched from xz to lzip, the following message was
received in the Octave list:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/octave-maintainers/2017-06/msg00037.htmlMike Miller wrote:
> Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future
> official releases?
> ... IMHO including .tar.xz would be a nice improvement in the Debian
> packaging domain.
Doesn't
this mean that Debian has a COI? It establishes a criterion to adopt
a
format and then tries to influence upstreams so the criterion is not
met.
As an user of Octave who wish to see more lzip adoption, I don't think this to be fair.
Maria Bisen