On 2013-05-14, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell johnandsa...@cox.net
wrote:
Are you trying to cause problems with free software?
Quite the opposite. He is trying to ensure that we don't have to modify
all packages to get them xz compressed, but rather does it from a
central place.
/Sune
Ben what basis do you have against .gz ?
And I'd love to know if it won't cause dependancy problems when
someone has more than one debian they are dealing with.
I doubt it's as simple as stated.
What's wrong with saying so?
And yes I do think there are some that would inject problems (such
On 05/14/2013 10:53 PM, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell wrote:
Ben what basis do you have against .gz ?
It was already mentioned, it takes more space. Everyone (e.g. Fedora
with rpm) is switching to xz, not just Debian. The Linux kernel is using
more advanced compression algorithms as
I'm complaining.
Why are you fixing something that isn't broken and isn't an issue ?
Are you trying to cause problems with free software?
Are you playing favorites?
It's too new to say if it has no long term problems (ie, such as
support issues).
How is shipping (ie kernel) in all three of
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
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell wrote:
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.
It's also being widely adopted by
On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:57:57 +0200
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
You mean for debian.tar? I would assume most debian.tars are not so big
that it would make a big difference and be worth the hassle, but dunno.
Yes, not a big difference for debian.tar as blogged(*),
- gz : 503M
-
Hi,
On Tue, 07 May 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and given the amount of already manually switched
packages, or packaging helpers. :/
On 8 May 2013 01:46, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 07 May 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and given the amount of
Hi,
On 05/07/2013 21:49, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and given the amount of already manually switched
packages, or packaging helpers. :/
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Hi,
On 05/07/2013 21:49, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and given the
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
If there's people who are still worried about that, I'd ask them to
file bugs on the base packages to make them pass -Zgz explicitly to
dpkg-deb (I'll do that for dpkg.deb in any case), and I can wait for
the base system to be
Hi!
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:03:13 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 05/07/2013 21:49, Guillem Jover wrote:
As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm planning to switch dpkg-deb default
compressor from gzip to xz, as there seemed
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:38:47 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
If there's people who are still worried about that, I'd ask them to
file bugs on the base packages to make them pass -Zgz explicitly to
dpkg-deb (I'll do that for
Hi,
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 05/07/2013 21:49, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and given the amount
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and given the amount of already manually switched
packages, or packaging
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I agree that we have such a consensus.
Not for packages installed by debootstrap.
There was a time where d-i was not ready, but nowadays udeb are compressed
with xz and busybox's xz is used in that context.
That's not relevant.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
On Wed, 08 May 2013, Michael Banck wrote:
Do you plan to switch the default compression for source packages to xz
as well?
You mean for debian.tar?
This and 3.0 (native) source packages.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:14:36PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
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
the way to go, and
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:13:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:14:36PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm planning to switch dpkg-deb default
compressor from gzip to
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 00:42 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:13:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:14:36PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm
21 matches
Mail list logo
