On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:06:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Tuesday 5 June 2007 06:54, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > Yes. But then what of projects like OpenOffice.org and gcc? > > No one has said that bzip2 should be *required* as a compression format, only > a possibility. I see the use in that: I've seen several upstreams shifting > from gzip to providing only bzip2 tarballs. In many cases these tarballs are > quite small, and I don't see much added value in repackaging those to .gz. > > Yes, but if the point is to avoid repackaging, then what is to be done about the projects like gcc and OOo, which release *only* in bzip2 compressed form? I think that the current policy of gzip-only provides the best possible balance between space and CPU/memory resources and also provides a nice bit of uniformity. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature