From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23044 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2012 20:53:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 23031 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2012 20:53:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SARE_SUB_OBFU_Z,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:53:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0UKreT3002681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:53:40 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0UKrdEO014892 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:53:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4F270353.8010609@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:53:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: xz-compressed release tarballs? References: <87mx9a1ag4.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <201201271341.41758.vapier@gentoo.org> <831uqkz1co.fsf@gnu.org> <201201281809.17343.vapier@gentoo.org> <4F26F55C.8050408@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4F26F55C.8050408@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 On 01/30/2012 07:54 PM, Stan Shebs wrote: > So while we can certainly debate whether this feature or that helps or hinders future progress, I don't think it's in our interests to disparage all the legacy support. Indeed. Keeping things in perspective, it doesn't seem like we're at the verge of a shift of mentality where people are rushing out to wack out all legacy support from GDB. Although, it has been pointed out that several GNU packages are already shipping xz only, including coreutils and grep, without complaint -- this is a very good indication that dropping .gz isn't that much of an obstacle as one might think at first sight. But, for GDB, let's leave that for some other day in the somewhat distant future, and move on. The options on the table were: (a) tar.gz, tar.bz2, tar.xz (b) tar.gz, tar.xz (c) tar.gz, tar.bz2 (status quo, do nothing, for completeness) tar.gz was still there in all proposals, which caters to older, legacy systems. I'm also in favor of replacing .bz2 with .xz, keeping .gz, option (b), and it seemed to me it got the popular vote. IMO, Just Do It (TM). -- Pedro Alves