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.

Reply via email to