Am Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 02:06:31 schrieb Dan McGee:
Yes, of course. I think we can take some time to let it bake, as there
is not an immediate need, and when 5.0 comes out we can move it to
core and then rebuild libarchive with support for both.
Sure, no need to hurry. Slackware has achieved
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 01:45:47 schrieb Dan McGee:
You snipped out what the libarchive release notes said- liblzma
supports xz AND lzma, apparently.
It is all here:
http://tukaani.org/xz/
Yes, but if I get it right you need
I am sorry for resurrect this thread, but i wish to know what was
decided about lzma. I still think that lzma could be a good use for
us.
BTW, Slackware will use the lzma compression:
ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/ChangeLog.txt
-- Hugo
Am Montag, 11. Mai 2009 20:58:50 schrieb Hugo Doria:
I am sorry for resurrect this thread, but i wish to know what was
decided about lzma. I still think that lzma could be a good use for
us.
BTW, Slackware will use the lzma compression:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote:
Am Montag, 11. Mai 2009 20:58:50 schrieb Hugo Doria:
I am sorry for resurrect this thread, but i wish to know what was
decided about lzma. I still think that lzma could be a good use for
us.
BTW, Slackware will use
Am Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 01:23:16 schrieb Dan McGee:
For libarchive to support lzma/xz natively, we would need liblzma in
core as well. Thoughts?
Sure its only a few KB. Even the complete lzma-utils package would be only
75KB.
Anyway: Would it be better to use (successor) xz instead? Or ist
Am Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 01:45:47 schrieb Dan McGee:
You snipped out what the libarchive release notes said- liblzma
supports xz AND lzma, apparently.
It is all here:
http://tukaani.org/xz/
Yes, but if I get it right you need
http://tukaani.org/xz/xz-4.999.8beta.tar.gz which should support
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 01:23:16 schrieb Dan McGee:
For libarchive to support lzma/xz natively, we would need liblzma in
core as well. Thoughts?
Sure its only a few KB. Even the complete
A good benchmark:
http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks
-- Hugo
Am Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:48:11 +0100
schrieb Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:45 +0100, Xavier wrote:
Also, if I am not mistaken, a given package is compressed only once,
by the packager, but decompressed many many times (by all users).
But of course the
Yep,
Compress really takes a little longer, but IIRC decompress takes
almost the same time of gzip.
-- Hugo
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Hugo Doria hugodo...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep,
Compress really takes a little longer, but IIRC decompress takes
almost the same time of gzip.
Also, if I am not mistaken, a given package is compressed only once,
by the packager, but decompressed many many times
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:45 +0100, Xavier wrote:
Also, if I am not mistaken, a given package is compressed only once,
by the packager, but decompressed many many times (by all users). But
of course the compression time needs to stay reasonable enough for the
packager, and the opinion of
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:15 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Where did this go?
Do we have any additional opinions regarding LZMA? Personally, I think
LZMA is great, and the new licensing (LGPL?) opens a lot of doors.
Personally, I can't wait to see squashfs-lzma to pick up speed.
I agree with
I may be wrong, but i think we should have lzma in [core]. We could
use .pkg.tar.lzma with pacman in the future.
BTW, lzma + delta would be great for those with slow connections and
it would save a lot of bandwidth for the Arch Linux servers.
IMHO, save bandwidth is more interesting than saving
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:15 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Where did this go?
Do we have any additional opinions regarding LZMA? Personally, I think
LZMA is great, and the new licensing (LGPL?) opens a lot of doors.
I'll throw in my (non-dev) hat and say that I like this change, for
what it's worth. In my eyes, the costs are very low and the benefits
are real.
--Daenyth
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Eric Bélanger snowmanisc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:15 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Where did this go?
Do we have any additional opinions regarding LZMA? Personally, I
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Andreas Radke a.ra...@arcor.de wrote:
I'd like to keep unneeded packages out of core. I see no need to move
lzma into core. We only support tar.gz for our repos. Whoever wants to
use a different format can rebuild libarchive easily.
I also wonder if our new tar
19 matches
Mail list logo
