Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
Sure: once there is a beta release of xz, lzma can go. When adding xz support, I considered whether to remove mention of lzma from NEWS, since it's now slated for removal. But of course, this is just my opinion. Ralf's is the one who matters here ;-)