On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-02-20, o godz. 14:12:17
> Lars Wendler napisał(a):
>
> > So what can we do? Three solutions came to my mind which I list
> > here in the order first being my favorite, last being my least
> > favorite:
> >
> > 1.)
> > Make portage'
Dnia 2014-02-20, o godz. 14:12:17
Lars Wendler napisał(a):
> So what can we do? Three solutions came to my mind which I list
> here in the order first being my favorite, last being my least
> favorite:
>
> 1.)
> Make portage's unpack function lzip compatible
Three packages still don't sound lik
2014-02-20 8:19 GMT-07:00 Mike Gilbert :
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Lars Wendler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it seems like some GNU projects start to release their source tarballs
>> in lzip compressed versions only [1][2].
>> This is a problem since portage's unpack function doesn't know anything
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:28:30 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>Last time I checked, lzip compressed slightly worse and was slower
>than xz-utils, so there really is no reason why one would want to use
>it. Maybe more important, even if lzip was at par with xz-utils, the
>latter has won the competition
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Lars Wendler wrote:
> it seems like some GNU projects start to release their source
> tarballs in lzip compressed versions only [1][2]. This is a problem
> since portage's unpack function doesn't know anything about lzip.
> For sys-fs/ddrescue (where I am the Gentoo pack
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems like some GNU projects start to release their source tarballs
> in lzip compressed versions only [1][2].
> This is a problem since portage's unpack function doesn't know anything
> about lzip.
>
> ...
>
> What do you think?
>
