On Saturday 2008-11-29 17:04, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> I have been following lzma-utils development closely for some time, >> and my impression is that xz obviates lzip. I would not want to >> encourage use of lzip without a convincing argument to the contrary. >> >> As soon as there's a beta xz release (i.e., stable format), >> I'll be switching from .lzma to .xz suffixes for all tarballs I create. > > Competition is good and even between open source projects. However, since > many > free projects depend on Automake, it makes sense for Automake to channel the > energy into a smaller set of preferred formats. Note that formats may be > independent from the tools which produce and consume them so that tools may > still compete. If new formats are added, the least worthy of the existing > supported distribution formats should be deprecated and eventually removed. > This means that if .xz is added that .lzma should be immediately deprecated > and > slated for retirement from Automake. Do you agree with this philosophy?
As for me, yes.
