On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Andreas Radke <[email protected]> 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 package now supports lzma and lzop >> compression (no tests so far). Both packages were not present when >> building the tar package in he chroot. But even when it's now possible >> to use these formats at runtime they should stay in extra until we may >> use them for our repos. > > I don't want to go too back and forth on this on the signoff thread so > I'll move it here. > > I was thinking much more in the context of archives in general rather > than just pacman using libarchive. libarchive ships with bsdtar, which > I have found to be quicker than GNU tar at extracting (so I use it > nearly exclusively). It would be a shame to tell people "we don't > support .tar.lzma for anything"- that seems rather arbitrary, doesn't > it? > > I too think [core] should stay as slim as possible, but when that > requires we compile our packages with a less than ideal set of > features, I want to at least give it some thought.
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 Dan though - libarchive isn't just a dep of pacman. We also ship bsdtar, which I use quite often.
