On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> LZIP is the new stable lzma compression utility
> Pardon, but what is your legitimation to claim lzip to be
> "the new stable lzma compression utility"?
>
> No doubt, it is "yet one another lzma" compression utility.
>
>>
>> ( http://freshmeat.net/p/lzip/ ) with magic bytes and checksum.
>
> IMO, rpm should not adopt lzip support, unless lzip has proven to be a
> functional and viable tool.
>
> See also:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2008-11/msg00076.html
>
> FWIW: I share Bob F's perspective. One lesson the mess about the
> original lzma has tought, is to be more reluctant on adoption of such
> compression tools.
Wrt compressors for use in rpm payloads, absolutely agreed. Build-time
support for uncompressing patches + tarballs for whatever formats is quite
different issue and not harmful, but I see little point in having support
for a format that barely exists in the wild (AFAICT). Otherwise we should
add LHA, ARJ and all the other myriads of known (un)compressors too...
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
