Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Jim Meyering
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 2008-11-28 17:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Since LZIP support has appeared apparently out of the blue (no prior discussion on this list), and Automake already had LZMA support, can someone please explain LZIP vs LZMA and why we now have at least

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Saturday 2008-11-29 10:06, Jim Meyering wrote: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 2008-11-28 17:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Since LZIP support has appeared apparently out of the blue (no prior discussion on this list), and Automake already had LZMA support, can someone please

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Jim Meyering
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 2008-11-29 10:06, Jim Meyering wrote: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 2008-11-28 17:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Since LZIP support has appeared apparently out of the blue (no prior discussion on this list), and Automake

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Jim Meyering wrote: I have been following lzma-utils development closely for some time, and my impression is that xz obviates lzip. I would not want to encourage use of lzip without a convincing argument to the contrary. As soon as there's a beta xz release (i.e., stable

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Saturday 2008-11-29 17:04, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Jim Meyering wrote: I have been following lzma-utils development closely for some time, and my impression is that xz obviates lzip. I would not want to encourage use of lzip without a convincing argument to the

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Jim Meyering
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Jim Meyering wrote: I have been following lzma-utils development closely for some time, and my impression is that xz obviates lzip. I would not want to encourage use of lzip without a convincing argument to the contrary. As soon

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
On Friday 2008-11-28 21:37, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: It makes sense to me that periodically Automake maintainers make an evaluation (and with the blessing of the FSF) intentionally deprecate generation of certain archive types as new archive types are added. The intention would be to

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello, * Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 05:13:04PM CET: Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If new formats are added, the least worthy of the existing supported distribution formats should be deprecated and eventually removed. This means that if .xz is added that .lzma

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Saturday 2008-11-29 17:30, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: On Friday 2008-11-28 21:37, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: It makes sense to me that periodically Automake maintainers make an evaluation (and with the blessing of the FSF) intentionally deprecate generation of certain archive types as new

Re: lzip support

2008-11-29 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: On Friday 2008-11-28 21:37, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: It makes sense to me that periodically Automake maintainers make an evaluation (and with the blessing of the FSF) intentionally deprecate generation of certain archive types as new archive types are

Re: lzip support

2008-11-28 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-11-28 17:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Since LZIP support has appeared apparently out of the blue (no prior discussion on this list), and Automake already had LZMA support, can someone please explain LZIP vs LZMA and why we now have at least two LZMA compressed targets? See

Re: lzip support

2008-11-28 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: I see that LZIP is GPL licensed and is pretty small, and with just one author. Sometimes, simplicity is the key. And I do not think that having exactly 1.0 authors makes a project insignificant. Actually I like the 1.0 authors since it makes the

Re: lzip support

2008-11-28 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-11-28 19:38, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: It was my impression that Automake adopted LZMA utils without fully evaluating the impact. My own package is now distributing .lzma packages. It's only great until something better comes up :)

Re: lzip support

2008-11-28 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Friday 2008-11-28 19:38, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: It was my impression that Automake adopted LZMA utils without fully evaluating the impact. My own package is now distributing .lzma packages. It's only

Re: lzip support

2008-11-28 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-11-28 21:37, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: If an archive format was ever offered before, the feeling is that it must continue to be offered for the rest of time. *sigh* well, everybody is entitled to do his own liking and if that's providing all formats just because. Currently

Re: lzip support

2008-11-28 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: Currently Automake does not seem to allow disabling gzip support. no-dist-gzip? What I was saying: you do not have to run make dist. If that works, then I was unaware of it. Initially there would be a warning, and after a couple of years, Woha,