-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Charles Wilson on 6/20/2009 12:00 PM: > Christopher Faylor wrote: >> You've said what you want to do but you haven't said *why*. What is the >> advantage of further complicating a complicated program by adding .xz >> support, espcially given the lack of adoption of the lzma format? > > Some projects: > http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/m4/ > introduced .lzma tarballs for their source distributions last year; and > are now switching to .xz instead of .lzma.
Not just that, but automake itself was the one that made distribution in .lzma possible in the first place, but now automake recommends .xz instead of .lzma. In other words, with automake 1.11 now out, it is very easy for upstream packages to use .xz, with its smaller file sizes. I was the one that released the upstream m4 using .xz, for precisely those reasons, so I'm happy to see Chuck working to make it easier to handle .xz files directly in setup.exe, even if it ends up being a slow conversion process. +1 from me for the new package - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake [email protected] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAko9UG0ACgkQ84KuGfSFAYCFygCfW2WU2qVJ7sWMvvPGwfWv1Dfc GPYAn3r0jJ6kU3jN0MXAhZVDSzQ9rRQE =bzXf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
