On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Montag, 15. Februar 2010 17:21:53 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
I thought you wanted to cut down on packaging to do only this, so I guessed you would invest the time to do it right, and not do half-baked half-broken solutions.
Seriously, what's the point in putting efforts into flexibility if you don't need it. Or if you have one reason why it should be useful to allow every package his favorite compressions format I'll look into it. It not htat hard to do, but makes the code more complex than needed.
I 100% agree with Thomas. Saying we "won't ever need it" is assuming that xz is the ultimate compression algorithm and nothing will ever be better. A year from now "zz compression" might come out and be awesome. Now we'd have to repeat this entire process for the zz algorithm. Being flexible isn't about supporting old stuff - it's about supporting new.