Re: ITP: {lzma-utils/liblzmadec-devel/liblzmadec0}-4.32.7-1

[Charles Wilson <cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm>]

Jari Aalto wrote:
> Charles Wilson <cygwin-+YAd1uT2djL3uN+rDzSBzrXvWnFrzL6o@public.gmane.org> writes:
>> lzma-utils is in Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, ... although sometimes under
>> the name 'lzma', even though all seem to be derived from the lzma-utils
>> source code, and not directly from the LZMA SDK source code.
> 
> I have no objection of dropping Cygwin 'lzma' package if you take over
> the maintenance. The SDK + Debian patches (GNU --long option interface)
> is pain to maintain because the SDK uses windows style CRLF.

I'm not unwilling, but I have one concern and one question:

Concern: I'm not entirely clear on the status of the code.

lzma-utils (stable) seems to be based on LZMA SDK 4.32, with certain
bugfixes backported.

Your lzma package is based on LZMA SDK 4.43.

The official LZMA SDK is up to 4.60.  It does not appear that lzma-utils
will resync to LZMA SDK until lzma-utils-5.0 is released -- whichever
decade that happens (current lzma-utils git SEEMS to be approximately
similar to LZMA SDK 4.5x...and moves like molasses)

Are we willing to "drop back" from LZMA SDK 4.43 to what is essentially
LZMA SDK 4.32+fixes?  I guess it's okay -- since most of the Linux
distros have chosen to do it, too.  Comments?

Question:
Should I follow Yaakov's example and ship an 'lzma' package that is
actually based on the lzma-utils source, or continue as I have with an
'lzma-utils' package and _obsolete the existing lzma package?

--
Chuck