On quinta-feira, 30 de agosto de 2012 21.10.16, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > Not being a packager I don't know, but I have a hard time imagining it's > > harder to change your packaging scripts from Qt4 to Qt5 than from tar.bz2 > > to > > tar.xz. > > 1) This could be said vice versa, so not fair to say. > 2) We have had bz2 previously (as well) and we were able to package with > bz2, so this could potentially be changing for people from what was working. > 3) Why another change in the first place, if there are no space > limitations?
Because LZMA produces smaller files. I'd like to increase adoption of it.
So let me put it this way: upgrade or go back to gzip.
> 4) Just one random example of those: when I mentioned this to
> one of friends today he was asking what xz exactly. That person was aware
> of the other formats. He has also made some packagings already for
> Harmattan, so not quite a newcomer. I know, this could happen vice versa,
> so not fair to say... That is why I think, it is ok to keep both, or the
> more common bz2 format, if we are really short with space.
I disagree.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
