On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 05:16:28PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 03:11:09PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>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 > >In case it isn't clear, I didn't ask for an explanation just to be mean. >I really did want the rationale to be archived in cygwin-apps.
Oh, and I meant to say that I don't think there is any reason to vote on this. Given the lzma is being deprecated all over the place, I think it is safe to say that we should be moving setup.exe in this direction ASAP. cgf
