hmm, on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:09:32PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber said that > Damien Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > proposed numerous times before, we need more things in ports using > > > xz before we do this.. > > > > More software (e.g. autoconf-2.68) is being distributed as .tar.xz only, > > Actually, autoconf-2.68 is available in .gz, .bz2, and .xz formats > from ftp.gnu.org.
i believe texlive is .xz only nowadays. the port deals with it very nicely :] > I'd also like to point out that xz cannot be built with gcc2, so > the use of .tar.xz distfiles warrants special consideration. i never had access the all those exotic archs, does this mean no tex for them anymore? i guess the archive could always be repackaged into another format if the availability of a certain arhive handler is the only tumbling block.. 7z can deal with .xz files i think, but that's also SHARED_ONLY.. yes it's bad that tools do not exist to pry open archives for certain archs, but maybe the others shouldn't be hold back because of this.. i remember a similar struggle when .bz2 started becoming really pupular.. -f -- many would be cowards if they had enough courage.
