Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:02:42PM CEST: This sort of decision-making results in people feeling that GNU software is excessively complex bloatware. Personal politics and status has become more important than proper technical a

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:02:42PM CEST: > This sort of decision-making results in people feeling that GNU > software is excessively complex bloatware. Personal politics and > status has become more important than proper technical analysis. This is fairly grave

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Charles Wilson wrote on Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:14:06PM CEST: > If you want to start an xz-vs-lzip fight, propose the appropriate > support for dist-lzip on automake-patches and fight it there. :-) git Automake has dist-lzip support. lzma/xz support was added at the time it was because somebody

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Charles Wilson
On 9/14/2010 11:02 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> >> No objections. >> >> I'm curious to know what the history of lzma and xz is that makes this >> desirable though. > > I am curious to know if XZ Utils has now achieved a proper stable > release or if i

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: No objections. I'm curious to know what the history of lzma and xz is that makes this desirable though. I am curious to know if XZ Utils has now achieved a proper stable release or if it will be perpetually in a prototype like state. Its code is

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Eric Blake
On 09/14/2010 07:58 AM, Eric Blake wrote: * configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Prefer better file format. * Makefile.maint (git-release, git-dist, prev-tarball) (new-tarball, diffs): Use correct extension. * HACKING: Update instructions. Hmm - I mentioned it in ChangeLog, but hadn't yet saved the

[PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Eric Blake
* configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Prefer better file format. * Makefile.maint (git-release, git-dist, prev-tarball) (new-tarball, diffs): Use correct extension. * HACKING: Update instructions. * .gitignore: Ignore .xz files. Signed-off-by: Eric Blake --- > > I'm fine with, if you also adjust HA

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-14 Thread Charles Wilson
On 9/14/2010 2:04 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > I'm curious to know what the history of lzma and xz is that makes this > desirable though. Here's some documentation I put together for the cygwin xz package: xz This package pr

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-13 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On 14 Sep 2010, at 11:58, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Eric, > > * Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:34:23PM CEST: >> * configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Prefer better file format. > >> Any objections to this patch? xz is a more robust successor to lzma. > > I'm fine with, if you also a

Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:34:23PM CEST: > * configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Prefer better file format. > Any objections to this patch? xz is a more robust successor to lzma. I'm fine with, if you also adjust HACKING, .gitignore, Makefile.maint. We require new-enoug

[PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma

2010-09-13 Thread Eric Blake
* configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Prefer better file format. Signed-off-by: Eric Blake --- Any objections to this patch? xz is a more robust successor to lzma. ChangeLog|5 + configure.ac |2 +- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/Change