Re: Using .tar.xz only on (was: install-module / /

Hello Olav,

What is the reasoning behind this move? Just storage savings? It seems
to me that it will actually be easier to request our sponsors
(RedHat/Novell/Oracle...) for more storage than pushing everyone into
the pain of having to deal with such unfamiliar format. We are
releasing .gz and .bz2 at the same time at the moment. Getting rid of
.gz would be reasonable, bz2 is supported everywhere for many years,
whereas .xz, well, is the first time I hear about it. We cannot assume
that the change won't have an impact just because most modern Linux
distros have packages to support the format.

I am not trying to criticise the effort rather than trying to
understand why is this such a big win.

Alberto Ruiz

2011/3/21 Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +0000, Ghee Teo wrote:
>> > I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for
>> > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not*
>> > supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to
>> > compile source code modules will have difficulties.
>> That is exactly what I meant.
> This statement is referring to:
>> > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not*
> I've filed a bug for jhbuild btw, to check for xz and to be able to
> install it.
> --
> Regards,
> Olav
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org

Un saludo,
Alberto Ruiz

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]