Re: Bug#928657: ITP: golang-github-naegelejd-go-acl -- Golang POSIX 1e ACL bindings

+ submit, debian-devel, debian-go пт, 10 мая 2019 г. в 09:31, Felixoid : > Hello. Did I miss something here? What would be the next step to submit > the repo https://github.com/Felixoid/golang-github-naegelejd-go-acl to > the created salsa > https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-github

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:59:26AM +0700, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > I understand that this was an issue when prototyping, but have you used ar > > to manipulate .deb archives even once this millenium? By now, the deb > > format is common, while ar is an obscure implementation detail. > I did used ar

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On 5/9/19 6:25 PM, Andrej Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thu, 9 May 2019, 15:57 Ian Jackson, > wrote: > > Ansgar writes ("Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"): > > `ar` needs to be replaced for the file size limitation mentioned >

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:30:14AM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 06:47, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > So I think Andrej is on the spot, and we should just switch from ar(5) > > > to tar(5) as the container > > > > I would heavily advise against archive-in-archive. Especially

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

Adam Borowski writes ("Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"): > It's not possible to peel away the outer layer as tar doesn't guarantee the > data is contiguous in the file. It supports sparse files, etc. If we were to use tar as a format we would support only a restricted subset o

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:18:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: be updated anyway to support any new format. It also destroys some of the nice properties of the 2.x format, namely: - Not requiring special tools to build/extract. This is really not a property worth preserving. I think it would

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

> "Michael" == Michael Stone writes: Michael> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:18:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >> be updated anyway to support any new format. It also destroys >> some of the nice properties of the 2.x format, namely: >> >> - Not requiring special tools to b

Re: Bug#928657: ITP: golang-github-naegelejd-go-acl -- Golang POSIX 1e ACL bindings

Hi On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:06 PM Felixoid wrote: > > + submit, debian-devel, debian-go sub...@bugs.debian.org is meant for creating a new bug.. > > пт, 10 мая 2019 г. в 09:31, Felixoid : >> >> Hello. Did I miss something here? What would be the next step to submit the >> repo https://github.

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

Quoting Sam Hartman : I've certainly heard people describe our use of both ar and tar as an architectural minus especially on embedded platforms just because the dependency set of dpkg needed to be larger. On my embedded systems, I don't have ar installed, only tar. I assume, that dpkg speaks a

Ghy

Sent from my iPhone

Re: Re: SAGE packages for Debian

Global media blogs games apps google maps hello world media world largest social media hate crime Sent from my iPhone

I

Sent from my iPhone app developers globally promoting media globally promoting global abuse harassment defamation hate crime

Global media abuse harassment defamation blogs

Sent from my iPhone

T

Sent from my iPhone

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:49:01PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting Sam Hartman : > > I've certainly heard people describe our use of both ar and tar as an > > architectural minus especially on embedded platforms just because the > > dependency set of dpkg needed to be larger. > > On my e

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, 10 May 2019 07:42:52 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >This is really not a property worth preserving. I disagree. I frequently unpack .debs on .rpm Systems, especially when I want to see how the rather nice behavior that I find in Debian is implemented to see whether I can implant that hotnes

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2019 07:42:52 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: This is really not a property worth preserving. I disagree. I frequently unpack .debs on .rpm Systems, especially when I want to see how the rather nice behavior that I find in

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

>> I did used ar to unpack .deb several times, usually when I had to pull a file >> on a non-Debian system (or when I could not remember the dpkg-deb syntax >> and I was lazy, but that doesn’t count :) > same here. and not only this millenium, but also this decade :) ar(1) is the only thing I've

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

W. Martin Borgert writes ("Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"): > Quoting Sam Hartman : > > I've certainly heard people describe our use of both ar and tar as an > > architectural minus especially on embedded platforms just because the > > dependency set of dpkg needed to be larger

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, May 10 2019, Ian Jackson wrote: >> On my embedded systems, I don't have ar installed, only tar. >> I assume, that dpkg speaks ar natively? > > dpkg-deb has a built-in decoder for the subset of ar that is used for > deb(5). One reason I chose ar rather than tar is that handwriting a > de

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2

On Fri, 10 May 2019 11:50:17 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >>On Fri, 10 May 2019 07:42:52 -0400, Michael Stone >>wrote: >>>This is really not a property worth preserving. >> >>I disagree. I frequently unpack .debs on .rpm Systems, especia