Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Adam Borowski wrote: > If you want a fair comparison: > -rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 98826240 Jun 16 20:26 octave-4.2.1.tar > -rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 15826565 Jul 7 17:13 octave-4.2.1.tar.lz > -rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 15174400 Jul 7 17:13 octave-4.2.1.tar.xz > > xz wins by 4.2%,

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Adam Borowski writes: > Thus, I'd recommend dropping lzip completely. It's worse and obscure. > With every distro having standardized on xz, providing lzip tarballs is > a pure waste of space. Personally, I don't see why anyone should care which compression formats

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:01:12AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Thomas Pircher wrote: > > in the example you mentioned upstream have added xz to the set of archives > > they distribute their source in. Currently[1] the GNU Octave source code is > >

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Thomas Pircher wrote: > Hi Maria, > > in the example you mentioned upstream have added xz to the set of archives > they distribute their source in. Currently[1] the GNU Octave source code is > being distributed as .gz, lz and .xz tarballs. > > I don't

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Matthias Klumpp wrote... > So, lzip isn't adopted widely, that's certainly not because of Debian > or any other Linux distribution. The war is over, the winner is VHS. Trying to get lzip support in wider usage is somewhat a boot-up problem: Few people see an advantage in doing this, so it

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 16:25:37 +0200, Maria Bisen wrote: >2017-07-03 15:11 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp : >> So, lzip isn't adopted widely, that's certainly not because of Debian >> or any other Linux distribution. > >I agree, but I thought that Debian adopting

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:38:59 +0100, Thomas Pircher wrote: >I don't get it; what exactly is the problem when upstream distributes >their source in multiple formats, including .xz and .lz, among others? That the lzip community knows that the lzipped sources will almost

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi Matthias, 2017-07-03 15:11 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp : > > So, lzip isn't adopted widely, that's certainly not because of Debian > or any other Linux distribution. > I agree, but I thought that Debian adopting lzip could make lzip more widely adopted; and that's why I started

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

2017-07-03 14:42 GMT+02:00 Maria Bisen : > [...] > 4- As a result, lzip is almost never used alone (without xz), and Debian can > justify forever the lack of lzip support > > You need to consider all four points to understand the issue. No, please read again the mails

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi Thomas, Thomas wrote: > I don't get it; what exactly is the problem when upstream distributes their > source in multiple formats, including .xz and .lz, among others? Please check again point 1 and 2. See below: 1- Somebody from Debian says: "if a lot of upstream tarballs start to be

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Maria Bisen writes ("Re: Please add lzip support in the repository"): > Moreover, software errors have already killed people: Good grief. This conversation is: 1. determined advocacy from an external project 2. going badly 3. not capable of leading to any productive outcome li

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On 2017-07-03 11:41, Maria Bisen wrote: 3- Somebody else, also from Debian, asks the upstream above to bring back the xz tarball 4- As a result, lzip is almost never used alone (without xz), and Debian can justify forever the lack of lzip support Hi Maria, in the example you mentioned

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi, Russ Allbery wrote: >> As an user of Octave who wish to see more lzip adoption, I don't think >> this to be fair. > Octave's use of lzip is completely unrelated to Debian asking for xz. > Providing xz in no way prevents Octave from also providing lzip. I think > you are inventing a

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Paul Wise wrote... > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > > I'm not keen on extending regular expressions like > > > > \.(gz|bz2|lzma|xz)$ > > > > that I have in many places again and again. > > That sort of hard-coding should stop, Understandable and desirable, but

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Maria Bisen writes: > Also, I think the issue here it's not just proponents of lzip "coming > here", but Debian people "going out", in what I reckon can be a conflict > of interest. This isn't what "conflict of interest" means. This is just an interest. There is no

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi Russ, Russ Allbery wrote: > Debian has never expressed any opinion about lzip outside of our project > mailing lists. The only reason why it's even on our radar is that > proponents of lzip keep *coming here* and trying to push it on us. Some > of them are polite about it, and we've had

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Maria Bisen writes: > After reading again Guillem Jover's answer it seems to me that the only > marketing campaign here is Debian against lzip. Even if you don't like > something, for whatever personal reasons, I don't think it's fine to > influence thousands of people, and

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi, Sorry for the delay, but I think this needs a clarification. Ian Jackson wrote: > For Debian binary and source packages, there is no benefit in ECC > in the compression layer. > > I'm not sure why all of this isn't obvious. > > As an aside: I am sceptical of the value of ECC as part of a

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes ("Re: Please add lzip support in the repository"): > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:36:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > >... > > > We pretty much need Debian pac

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:36:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >... > > We pretty much need Debian packages to be 100% correct in the first > > place, they are not going to be subject to lossy recovery from > > corruption (which is where

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:36:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: [...] >> So, it would make more sense to have a par2 (or create a modern version >> of it, actually) ECC layer on top of the compression layer, at which >> point we can use one of

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:36:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >... > We pretty much need Debian packages to be 100% correct in the first > place, they are not going to be subject to lossy recovery from > corruption (which is where lzip is supposed to be much better than xz): > we

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On 2017-06-16 12:42:00 +0200 (+0200), Maria Bisen wrote: [...] > When I saw in the gcc thread that there's only one distribution > not supporting lzip [...] Following the GCC discussion you linked, I believe it was actually a reference to SLES lacking any package of lzip at all:

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Russ Allbery wrote: > Oh, you're concerned with what upstream tarballs Debian can consume > without repackaging. > > I don't see any reason why this should prevent GCC from releasing tarballs > compressed with lzip if they want to. They certainly wouldn't stop > releasing tarballs in other

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

> lzip 1.19 is available just in Debian experimental, because we are in > final-countdown nearly-absolute freeze: we will release the next Debian > stable this weekend, with lzip 1.18. > > lzip 1.19 should be uploaded to Debian unstable sometime after we > release, at its debian maintainer

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:30:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > writes: > > > First of all, thank you for your kind and sympathetic message. I'm > > referring to the second option you mentioned. We are using gcc, and it > > seems that a reason to not use lzip in gcc is that

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

writes: > First of all, thank you for your kind and sympathetic message. I'm > referring to the second option you mentioned. We are using gcc, and it > seems that a reason to not use lzip in gcc is that Debian doesn't > support source tarballs in lzip format. Oh, you're

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, mariabi...@gmail.com wrote: > PS: lzip version available in Debian is 1.16, but the last one is 1.19. Maybe > it's time to update! :) lzip 1.19 is available just in Debian experimental, because we are in final-countdown nearly-absolute freeze: we will release the next Debian

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Also I doubt the reduced disk space and network bandwitdth usage of any > new kid on the block (there's also zstd) really justifies the work > needed to implement the support in the many tools that deal with the > files. I might be convinced

Re: Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Maria Bisen writes: > > It's been drawn to my attention the topic included in this thread: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00084.html > > I've got the feeling that the distribution the thread talks about is > > precisely yours,

Re: Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi Guillem, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 17:22:53 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:55:10PM +0200, Maria Bisen wrote: > > > It's been drawn to my attention the topic included in this thread: > > > > > >

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Maria Bisen writes: > It's been drawn to my attention the topic included in this thread: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00084.html > I've got the feeling that the distribution the thread talks about is > precisely yours, Debian's. As stated there, giving support

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Stuart Prescott writes ("Re: Please add lzip support in the repository"): > > What is `apt-helper cat-file' and how does it help ? > > On stretch: > > $ apt-file search apt-helper > apt: /usr/lib/apt/apt-helper Ah. I looked on PATH. I expect "Front d

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi! On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 00:35:37 +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > > What is `apt-helper cat-file' and how does it help ? > $ apt-file search apt-helper > apt: /usr/lib/apt/apt-helper > $ /usr/lib/apt/apt-helper download-file >

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

> What is `apt-helper cat-file' and how does it help ? On stretch: $ apt-file search apt-helper apt: /usr/lib/apt/apt-helper $ /usr/lib/apt/apt-helper apt 1.4.6 (amd64) Usage: apt-helper [options] command apt-helper [options] cat-file file ... apt-helper [options] download-file

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Paul Wise writes ("Re: Please add lzip support in the repository"): > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > I'm not keen on extending regular expressions like > > > > \.(gz|bz2|lzma|xz)$ > > > > that I have in many places aga

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Hi! On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 17:22:53 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:55:10PM +0200, Maria Bisen wrote: > > It's been drawn to my attention the topic included in this thread: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00084.html > > > > I've got the feeling that

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote: > I'm not keen on extending regular expressions like > > \.(gz|bz2|lzma|xz)$ > > that I have in many places again and again. That sort of hard-coding should stop, if you see it somewhere please switch to using apt, either via the apt

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

Maria Bisen wrote... > I've got the feeling that the distribution the thread talks about is > precisely yours, Debian's. As stated there, giving support to lzip in > Debian seems feasable and easy. Could it be possible, then, to add > lzip support? : ) If I understand correctly, it's about using

Re: Please add lzip support in the repository

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:55:10PM +0200, Maria Bisen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention the topic included in this thread: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00084.html > > I've got the feeling that the distribution the thread talks about is > precisely yours, Debian's. As stated