On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 21:53 -0400, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell wrote: > I'm complaining. > > Why are you fixing something that isn't broken and isn't an issue ?
It's not broken, but there is an issue: it's getting hard to fit a generally useful set of packages and tasks on CD#1, and xz compression would make this easier. In general, xz can achieve substantially better compression ratios than gzip, with little extra cost in decompression time. > Are you trying to cause problems with free software? > Are you playing favorites? What basis do you have for making such accusations? > It's too new to say if it has no long term problems (ie, such as > support issues). xz has been supported in Debian for some time, with no problems that I'm aware of. > How is shipping (ie kernel) in all three of .gz, and .bz2, > and in .xz saving anyone on either size any time or effort? > It isn't. Er... kernel.org does that, not Debian. Ben. > I still think Compress is all the rage and the best of > end all solutions :) > > > Guillem Jover wrote: > > Hi! > > > > As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm planning to switch dpkg-deb default > > compressor from gzip to xz, as there seemed to be consensus that was > > -- Ben Hutchings Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1368500308.4304.66.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk