> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:48:24 -0600 (MDT) > From: Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> > > >On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 14:20, Mark Kettenis wrote: > >> I've ranted before about implementing "standard" tools in Perl. The > >> user experience just isn't the same as with C code. > >> > >> But even more so than with nl(1), why would we want to use something > >> that's different from what everybody else uses? If we want bzip2 in > >> base (and I think there are good reasons for having it) we should > >> simply use the standard bzip2 code. > > > >I don't have a problem with importing bzip2, per se. But iirc previous > >discussions basically ended with "it adds more code and will slow down > >builds." > > If I recall, previous discussions were not about "but then we can use it > as a complete replacement for gzip or use it for the install media or ...", > as if this is a general replacement algorithm.
Somebody said "/usr/bin is full" ;). > >But we've already been slowing down builds for the past two > >years. Adding another copy of the C version returns us to the bloat > >discussion. I'm trying to dance around that objection by using code > >that already has been imported and built. > > If it is now very common, we might as well put it in base properly. These days I see more .tar.bz2 than .tar.gz. However, I think .bz2 usage is declining in favour of .xz. > It is primarily used by ports. Dunno about others, but I download lots of source code to take a look at it, and it usually comes as a .tar.bz2 these days. Installing bzip2 is typically one of the first things I do on a machine.
