On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pie...@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.