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