On 07/12/2010 11:05, Jesus Cea wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/12/10 15:15, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 12:16 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
Hi,
I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
tarballs. If anything, it w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/12/10 15:15, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 12:16 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.
Am 06.12.2010 13:24, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
I can't imagine *adding* a download format is that much more complex, except
perhaps for our users to try to figure out which file to grab, and even that's
stretching it I think. But I would be okay with adding an .xz download for
3.2 and then re-evalua
Am 06.12.2010 13:24, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Dec 05, 2010, at 11:15 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>>It only increases complexity if we don't cut one of the tar.bz2 or tgz
>>source releases. But by offering a a tar.xz file we can give people a
>>smaller download which saves everyone time and bandwid
On Dec 05, 2010, at 11:15 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>It only increases complexity if we don't cut one of the tar.bz2 or tgz
>source releases. But by offering a a tar.xz file we can give people a
>smaller download which saves everyone time and bandwidth which can
>matter if the downloader's Internet
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:24, Steve Holden wrote:
> On 12/5/2010 10:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 13:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
On 12/5/2010 10:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 13:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
>>> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
>>> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 13:11 -0800, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>
> If these are Solaris platforms we support then that's fine and we
> should keep tgz files, but if these are platforms we no longer care
> about then I say the lives of release managers should be simplified by
> cutting tgz files
2010/12/5 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> Looking at download statistics, for the 2.7 release, in July, we
On Dec 5, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over tar.bz2?
I prefer tgz over tar.bz2 because my fingers are
>> That, in turn, is easy to answer: yes, there are. Certain Solaris
>> releases had gzip available (even though /usr/bin/tar wouldn't know
>> how to invoke it), but no bzip2 utility.
>
> If these are Solaris platforms we support then that's fine and we
> should keep tgz files, but if these are pl
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 13:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
>> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
>> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over tar.bz2?
>
> These questions are difficult to an
> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over tar.bz2?
These questions are difficult to answer with the download stats alone.
If you really want to know
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:43, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 05.12.2010 20:39, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ra
> As for the .zip version, I've not found any requests for a source
> download with Windows-specific newlines. I suppose that developers
> either check out directly from SVN, or have decompression programs
> and editors that can cope.
Indeed, Windows users should be able to cope with the tgz just
Am 05.12.2010 20:40, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> -On [20101205 20:23], "Martin v. Löwis" (mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote:
>> For those of us involved in the release process, every single file is a
>> big problem, indeed. Seriously.
>
> Correct me if wrong, but isn't rolling up a tgz, tbz2,
Am 05.12.2010 20:39, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> Looking at download statistics, for the 2.7 re
-On [20101205 20:23], "Martin v. Löwis" (mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote:
>For those of us involved in the release process, every single file is a
>big problem, indeed. Seriously.
Correct me if wrong, but isn't rolling up a tgz, tbz2, or txz not a matter
of repeating the same actions on a tarball you al
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
Looking at download statistics, for the 2.7 release, in July, we had
these numbers of downloads:
Pyt
> I mean, seriously, is providing some extra files in a particular compression
> format the biggest of our problems?
For those of us involved in the release process, every single file is a
big problem, indeed. Seriously.
Regards,
Martin
___
python-commi
Am 05.12.2010 19:16, schrieb M.-A. Lemburg:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>>
>> .tgz - 13 M
2010/12/5 Fred Drake :
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> (btw, someone mentioned bandwidth -- are we paying for bandwidth? what
>> fraction of the python.org traffic is downloads?)
>
> Even if the PSF isn't paying for bandwidth (and I don't know either
> way), users on the
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> .tgz - 13 MB
> .tar.bz2 - 11 MB
> .tar.xz - 8.6 MB
I've never
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> (btw, someone mentioned bandwidth -- are we paying for bandwidth? what
> fraction of the python.org traffic is downloads?)
Even if the PSF isn't paying for bandwidth (and I don't know either
way), users on the other end often are. This is u
2010/12/5 Georg Brandl :
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> .tgz - 13 MB
> .tar.bz2 - 11 MB
> .tar.xz - 8.6 MB
tgz (and
Am 05.12.2010 16:56, schrieb Senthil Kumaran:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:16:48PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs.
>
> Yes, it is necessary. People sometimes just expect it from an Open
> Source project. (At least, wh
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:16:48PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs.
Yes, it is necessary. People sometimes just expect it from an Open
Source project. (At least, when someone is going to try it for the
first time)
> If
Am 05.12.2010 14:58, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> -On [20101205 13:58], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>>That's why I said "in addition to".
>
> My mistake, read over that.
>
>>It was just a thought I had while I watched the files upload through my
>>rather slow link. I promi
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 12:16 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> .tgz - 13 MB
> .t
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 14:58, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
wrote:
> I just wondered why, in light of my having missed the "in addition to", we
> would need to move to xz only, given that disk space is relatively cheap as
> opposed to the real code, et cetera.
Because bandwidth is much more expen
-On [20101205 13:58], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>That's why I said "in addition to".
My mistake, read over that.
>It was just a thought I had while I watched the files upload through my
>rather slow link. I promise I won't disturb you again tackling our real
>big problems.
There's
Am 05.12.2010 13:33, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> -On [20101205 12:19], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>>I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>>tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>>to .tar.bz2, which has a nice
-On [20101205 12:19], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
Given that xz is only provided since GNU Co
Hi,
I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
.tgz - 13 MB
.tar.bz2 - 11 MB
.tar.xz - 8.6 MB
Georg
_
34 matches
Mail list logo
