[arch-dev-public] request: xz-utils into core

[Aaron Griffin]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
> Am Sat, 3 Jan 2009 08:31:55 -0600
> schrieb "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>> > I'd like to keep unneeded packages out of core. I see no need to
>> > move lzma into core. We only support tar.gz for our repos. Whoever
>> > wants to use a different format can rebuild libarchive easily.
>> >
>> > I also wonder if our new tar package now supports lzma and lzop
>> > compression (no tests so far). Both packages were not present when
>> > building the tar package in he chroot. But even when it's now
>> > possible to use these formats at runtime they should stay in extra
>> > until we may use them for our repos.
>>
>> I don't want to go too back and forth on this on the signoff thread so
>> I'll move it here.
>>
>> I was thinking much more in the context of archives in general rather
>> than just pacman using libarchive. libarchive ships with bsdtar, which
>> I have found to be quicker than GNU tar at extracting (so I use it
>> nearly exclusively). It would be a shame to tell people "we don't
>> support .tar.lzma for anything"- that seems rather arbitrary, doesn't
>> it?
>>
>> I too think [core] should stay as slim as possible, but when that
>> requires we compile our packages with a less than ideal set of
>> features, I want to at least give it some thought.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>
> I've found more and more gnu tools being shipped in the new xz file
> format. So may I request now to move lzma-utils' successor
> http://tukaani.org/xz/ to be put into testing for some time and
> later to core?

Does xz-utils still support all lzma archives? A brief reading claims
it is a new format, but I don't know about backwards compat.