xz-compressed release tarballs?

Eli Zaretskii eliz@gnu.org
Thu Jan 26 21:31:00 GMT 2012


> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:31:48 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:21:47 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > With xz -9e, that would have been 25% smaller,
> > at 15282412 bytes (contrast w/20614020 for .bz2).
> > The .xz tarball would have uncompressed more quickly, too.
> 
> +1
> 
> That slow bzip2 decompression is a continuous pain during packaging, staring
> at bzip2 -dc on each gdb.spec debugging cycle.

As long as we don't drop bz2 and gz, that pain will never go away.

> Previous proposal by me:
> 	xz for the new release tip
> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-09/msg00341.html

Please think a little about those who don't necessarily have a tar
that knows about xz.  The world doesn't end with GNU/Linux.



More information about the Gdb mailing list