Change History (14)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Then you and Trent can simply install it on your machine. Sheesh, William, you whine like a little baby. Shut up already.
William, don't open another ticket about this. If you do, I will do everything within my technical ability to see that you cannot access the LFS server.
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Replying to randy@…:
William, don't open another ticket about this. If you do, I will do everything within my technical ability to see that you cannot access the LFS server.
I won't do that, but one more thing: I do want to see this in the book some day.
I think it's stable enough. What do you think?
follow-up: 5 comment:4 by , 16 years ago
| Priority: | normal → low |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | wontfix |
| Status: | closed → reopened |
I think this should be considered seriously for inclusion, even for 6.5 because,
- the .xz format is now a standard [1]
- many of the gnu packages use it already (coreutils), and I believe it's a choice based to the
fact that it looks that it's the better (right now) technology (various benchmarks proved that fact)
- LZMA-utilities package is now obsolete and is not under active development and quite probably no-one is using it anymore
So, I am reopening the ticket, but I am setting the priority to low though, as there is no real urgency. However William, if you really want xz utils into the Book, you should contribute a patch instead of spamming Track and mailing lists.
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Replying to ag@…:
So, I am reopening the ticket, but I am setting the priority to low though, as there is no real urgency. However William, if you really want xz utils into the Book, you should contribute a patch instead of spamming Track and mailing lists.
Once I get around to doing that, I will get a patch ready.
comment:6 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Closing this ticket for the reasons previously stated.
Additionally, I have spent two days looking at packages to see if they need updates. I have not run into *ONE* BLFS package that uses xz format. However, I have seen *MANY* that are packaged using LZMA.
I do not want to set precedent that we *ADD* a new package that is considered development.
This is not directed at you personally, Ag. I just think it sets bad precedent. Additionally, we don't need it for any BLFS package. Furthermore, it is CMMI. One should not need instructions to build this package.
follow-up: 9 comment:7 by , 16 years ago
That's why I said there is no real urgency. xz will be a common format (in the near future) for package distribution. If there is time, it can go into 6.5, otherwise it can be moved to future, as no matter the delay, xz will go eventually into the Book. If William is willing to provide the patch, I don't see a real reason to avoid applying it and to have it side by side with LZMA-utils.
As for the precedence, we already have such cases. zsh, mutt, mplayer, tidy to name a few. Anyway, I am not to go to Troy to make a war for this, thus I leave it for you as you always have the final word on anything, and I respect that.
comment:8 by , 16 years ago
No Ag, those are not the same as far as the precedence goes. Every one of those packages you named were introduced into the book as stable versions. For various technical reasons, we've allowed these packages to update to dev versions.
In the case of XZ, it would be introducing a development package into the book. That has never been done. I'm not trying to get in the final word, I just want to make it known that you are totally incorrect in your analysis.
comment:9 by , 16 years ago
Replying to ag@…:
That's why I said there is no real urgency. xz will be a common format (in the near future) for package distribution. If there is time, it can go into 6.5, otherwise it can be moved to future, as no matter the delay, xz will go eventually into the Book. If William is willing to provide the patch, I don't see a real reason to avoid applying it and to have it side by side with LZMA-utils.
That's what I'm working on. But XZ-Utils is the newer version of LZMA-Utils. I will have a patch ready soon enough.
follow-up: 12 comment:11 by , 16 years ago
Also, the -J option uses XZ to compress/uncompress XZ/LZMA files, as pointed out by David.
comment:12 by , 16 years ago
Replying to willimm:
Also, the -J option uses XZ to compress/uncompress XZ/LZMA files, as pointed out by David.
The -J option for Tar, speficaly.
...well, Trent Shea wants to see this package in the book.
By the way, I wish I could change the description.