Am Montag, 15. Februar 2010 23:06:26 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
It's just that the patch was sent to the ML, apparently for some sort of code review. That's all I (we?) are suggesting: there is room for improvement <here>.
Sure, and I appreciate your input. I also get your arguments. And I don't think that this patch is the best approach ever; it really depends on what we need and I guess my assumption was not quite correct here.
I can think of a handful of cases where switching to "one true compression algorithm" will bite us in the ass, and thus think it needs to be more flexible. I'm not suggesting "I want to do crazy shit with compression"
Let's make a deal: I'll create a new branch in my repo and see what it takes to make the package handling more general. (it will probably take less code than we already put into this discussion ;-)) -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre