Hi Russ, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Debian has never expressed any opinion about lzip outside of our project > mailing lists. The only reason why it's even on our radar is that > proponents of lzip keep *coming here* and trying to push it on us. Some > of them are polite about it, and we've had polite conversations as a > result. My first message was polite, I think, but it received at least one aggressive answer. Also, I think the issue here it's not just proponents of lzip "coming here", but Debian people "going out", in what I reckon can be a conflict of interest. For example, in this same thread we can read: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00209.html Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Now, if a lot of upstream tarballs start to be natively avaiable in .gz > and .lzip format (no .xz), *then* it becomes interesting to at least > support lzip for source packages. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00212.html Russ Allbery wrote: > We're very unlikely to adopt lzip as a native upstream tarball > format until it is in very widespread use elsewhere. And when Octave switched from xz to lzip, the following message was received in the Octave list: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/octave-maintainers/2017-06/msg00037.html Mike Miller wrote: > Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future > official releases? > ... IMHO including .tar.xz would be a nice improvement in the Debian > packaging domain. Doesn't this mean that Debian has a COI? It establishes a criterion to adopt a format and then tries to influence upstreams so the criterion is not met. As an user of Octave who wish to see more lzip adoption, I don't think this to be fair. Maria Bisen
