James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
upstream source (since the vast majority of source
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
On Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 05:55:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It just so happens that with XFree86 we can't use pristine source anyway.
XFree86 source ships like the X source itself does -- in three chunks.
Anyone willing to discuss improvements to our source package format?
Adding
Hi,
Felix == Felix Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Felix (If I can change the MD5ed file, I can often also
Felix change the MD5.)
So tell me, how do you fake the signature of the announcement
on c.o.l.a? You may change the tar file on your mirror all you want,
but I shall e looking
James Troup writes:
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
upstream source (since the vast majority of source stills
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
upstream source (since the vast majority of source
Sven Upstream authors might choose to release upstream source compressed
Sven by bzip2. So bzip2 compression should be a valid option for source
Sven archives.
Yes, just as another datapoint, GNU Octave does. For the record:
miles:/var/spool/mirror/octave [root] # ls -l
On Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 05:20:39PM +0200, Sven Rudolph wrote:
IMHO the pristine property is more importent than the compression
ratio. If a choice between pristine gzipped and re-compressed bzip2ed
has to be made, I'd vote for the pristine way.
Could someone explain to me why it's so
Avery Could someone explain to me why it's so important to keep sources
Avery pristine in this sense?
Security. Trojan horses. To be able to compare against digital footprints (eg
md5sums) from upstream.
Avery I can understand not wanting to
Avery untar-retar the archive, but
Felix Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Avery Could someone explain to me why it's so important to keep sources
Avery pristine in this sense?
Security. Trojan horses. To be able to compare against digital footprints (eg
md5sums) from
On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 02:14:08PM -0400, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having said that, I'm a lot less opposed to this idea than I am to the
idea of using bzip2 for debs.
Well, perhaps it would be nice to have it as an option for things
where either we
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
upstream source (since the vast majority of source stills comes in
.tar.gz form).
Having said
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
By recompressing things in bzip2, you lose the ability to use pristine
upstream source (since the vast majority of source
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
Not as the only format -- even the linux kernel is available in gzipped
tar.
I'm sorry, but the source format is needed in a far wider range of
contexts than the .deb
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be
appropriate, though?
I seem to remember that there was some legal problem with using bzip2
in the US - software patent, that sort of thing. Is
Daniel I seem to remember that there was some legal problem with using
Daniel bzip2 in the US - software patent, that sort of thing. Is this
Daniel true is it just FUD?
IIRC that was the case for bzip compression. Bzip2 was rewritten to avoid it.
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16 matches
Mail list logo
