This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ITP: mingw-xz (1.7 only)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 05:16:28PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 03:11:09PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>According to Charles Wilson on 6/20/2009 12:00 PM:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>You've said what you want to do but you haven't said *why*. What is
>>>>the advantage of further complicating a complicated program by adding
>>>>.xz support, espcially given the lack of adoption of the lzma format?
>>>Some projects: http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/m4/ introduced .lzma tarballs
>>>for their source distributions last year; and are now switching to .xz
>>>instead of .lzma.
>>Not just that, but automake itself was the one that made distribution
>>in .lzma possible in the first place, but now automake recommends .xz
>>instead of .lzma. In other words, with automake 1.11 now out, it is
>>very easy for upstream packages to use .xz, with its smaller file
>>sizes. I was the one that released the upstream m4 using .xz, for
>>precisely those reasons, so I'm happy to see Chuck working to make it
>>easier to handle .xz files directly in setup.exe, even if it ends up
>>being a slow conversion process.
>>+1 from me for the new package
>In case it isn't clear, I didn't ask for an explanation just to be mean.
>I really did want the rationale to be archived in cygwin-apps.
Oh, and I meant to say that I don't think there is any reason to vote on
this. Given the lzma is being deprecated all over the place, I think it
is safe to say that we should be moving setup.exe in this direction