On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:41:01 -0500, William Immendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'm listening, and watching, but for the moment I don't >> see any reason to put it in the book as a beta - for the >> moment we can still get packages as .tar.gz. > You don't see any reason? You need to look a lot closer: > > * Fedora, Arch, CLFS, and Slackware use it arleady, so +4 points to XZ. > * This release is very close to a stable release, another +1 point to > XZ. > * The file format for it is arleady stable, +1 to XZ. > * And tar uses too, +1 to XZ.
But those aren't any reasons to *use* it. What *requires* the use of the .xz file format that isn't also available in .gz or .bz2 files? Unless there is something, this package is simply a *nice to have*, not a necessity, and therefore can be delayed until an editor really decides it's an itch that needs scratching. Of course, if someone were to provide a patch to the book that added the XZ-Utils package to the book then I'm sure someone is more likely to review and apply it. It takes considerable effort to add a package to the book, validate the instructions and continue to maintain the package. You should not expect anyone to respond to your demands, William, especially when the need for the package being requested is so small. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
