On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:31:06PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2010/11/19 22:50, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > > Do we want to use .xz distfiles for ports that otherwise do not > > depend on archivers/xz? > > I would certainly use .xz distfiles if I'm packaging/hosting my own > snapshot tarball from an upstream repository and it's a non-trivial > size. (e.g. when we were building llvm from a snapshot). For texmf, > admittedly an extreme case, it saves 87MB compared to bzip2 - for > most things I've checked, xz saves as much over bzip2 as bzip2 > saves over gzip. > > If it's something small I probably wouldn't use either bzip2 > or xz, I'd stick with gzip as it's faster to decompress and avoids > additional dependencies. And for something huge I wouldn't think > twice if there's an .xz distfile available. For mid-sized things > given a choice of distfiles, I'd probably use bzip2 at the moment > because writing a separate EXTRACT_CASES is messy, but that's > about the only reason, I don't see any major advantage of bzip2 > over xz.
Adding xz to bsd.port.mk is trivial. Of course, it means people may start using xz when it is not justified. Hence the question...
