Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2012 05:54 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
FYI, a couple of weeks ago, Aki Helin exposed still more problems in
gzip's unpacking code.
>>>
>>> Well, to be fair, I also have a similar
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 05:54 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> FYI, a couple of weeks ago, Aki Helin exposed still more problems in
>>> gzip's unpacking code.
>>
>> Well, to be fair, I also have a similar problem with 'tar'
>> in my inb
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 05:54 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> FYI, a couple of weeks ago, Aki Helin exposed still more problems in
>> gzip's unpacking code.
>
> Well, to be fair, I also have a similar problem with 'tar'
> in my inbox, from Aki, but I'm not inclined to suggest that
> we stop u
On 12/15/2012 05:54 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> FYI, a couple of weeks ago, Aki Helin exposed still more problems in
> gzip's unpacking code.
Well, to be fair, I also have a similar problem with 'tar'
in my inbox, from Aki, but I'm not inclined to suggest that
we stop using 'tar'
__
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>>> On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
>>>
On 8 December 2012 23:01, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
>>> this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
>>> please speak up now.
>>
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Jim Meyering wrote:
I just encountered new argument for providing .gz of autoconf also in
the future.
There is no tangible benefit offered to the world by removing the
gzip-compressed autoconf package. Xz is excessively complex,
excessively large, and has limited portabili
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
>>> this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
>>> please speak up now.
>>
>>
Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
>> this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
>> please speak up now.
>
> I just encountered new argument for providing .gz o
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
please speak up now.
I just encountered new argument for provid
On 24 November 2012 10:58, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On 11/24/2012 09:16 AM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
>>> this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 releas
On 11/24/2012 09:16 AM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
>> this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
>> please speak up now.
>
> I just encountered new arg
On 2 March 2012 06:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; if
> this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 release,
> please speak up now.
I just encountered new argument for providing .gz of autoconf also in
the future.
13 matches
Mail list logo
