Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 08:10:00AM +0000, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 8, 2019 9:43:50 PM UTC, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>
> >I just checked Stretch: not a single .bz2, either control nor data. I'm
> >not going to download all of Jessie just to check -- but even assuming
> >something was left by Jessie's time, by Bullseye trying to install such a
> >.deb will mean mixing packages 3 releases apart.
>
> dpkg-deb is used to examine debs too, and considering Jessie is still LTS
> and Wheezy is ELTS, you may well want to examine packages from several
> releases ago on a current system. I have a weird case at work where I
> need to examine packages from as far back as Sarge and Etch through
> Buster, but I'd fully understand not supporting that.
Yeah -- and on any non-minimal system, unpacking such debs would work
without any action (be it via dlopen or exec|pipe). libbz2 has enough
dependencies that it won't get out of default installs anytime soon. On
minimal systems you'd get an error message telling you to install the
optional library.
> Some local packages can be long-lived, too. E.g., at work I have one that
> installs an internal CA. That package hasn't needed changing in a while,
> it drops a file and calls update-ca-certificates. Wouldn't be a huge deal
> to rebuild it, of course.
You can "ar t foobar.deb" to see what kind of compression it uses. I don't
think bzip2 was ever the default, though -- thus it's likely to happen only
in largest or overoptimized packages.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: