[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency

From: Warren Young
Subject: Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:48:07 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Eric Blake wrote:

The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69;

What problem are y'all trying to solve here? Is running out of disk space or bandwidth?

I hope you're not just trying to save disk space. I did a little math here and it looks like xz might save you 5 months of waiting for disk prices to drop. Same $/GiB either way.

A better argument is the one behind RPM moving to xz: so they can keep adding bigger and more packages without moving to a second DVD. But, I don't see that applying to

I still use systems[*] that don't have tar -J, and am likely to continue doing so for many years to come. Installing xz isn't a big deal, but typing the longer commands needed for separate decompression and untarring is.

[*] The one likely to cause me the most problems is CentOS 5, replaced only about a year ago, which will still be receiving bug fixes for another 5 years. Given that we still have CentOS 3 boxes in service despite the OS being EOL'd more than a year ago, I'd say I'm going to be without tar -J everywhere until the third tech bubble hits in ~2019, assuming Wall Street keeps the current schedule.

OS X Lion, released not that long ago, lacks gnutar -J, too. Apple being Apple, Lions will probably be endangered way before 2019, but still...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]