Hi Antonio, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Lars Wendler wrote: > > At the time of my initial email we didn't have lziprecover in our > > repository. But I added it to our tree meanwhile. > > Thanks. You're welcome :) > I guess lziprecover was in Gentoo's repository at least until 19 Mar > 2012 as part of the lzip package[1]. In version 1.13 lzip and > lziprecover became two separate projects. > > [1]http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-arch/lzip/ChangeLog?view=markup Quite likely. I suppose our maintainers of lzip (currently the team for base-system packages) didn't recognize the outsourcing of lziprecover. > > Still lziprecover is no hard requirement for ddrescue and thus I'd > > prefer to have ddresue tarball in some different compressed format > > available. > > Ddrescue 1.18 is planned to produce new types of log files[2] and > compress them using lzip. So lzip could become a hard requirement for > ddrescue soon. > > [2] http://freecode.com/projects/addrescue/releases/356852 > > > > Would there be a chance of you uploading the tarballs additionally > > to the lzip compressed ones in some other format like xz? > > Until five years ago I was making releases in a single format > (bzip2). Then I switched to a dual format (gzip + lzip) as a > transition to releasing again a single format (lzip). So the question > is, for how long do you need me to continue making dual format > releases? (Please, don't say "forever"). :-) Well to be honest my intention was to request you providing the tarball in another compressed format forever. IMHO lzip is a quite seldomly used compression format for tarballs. Furthermore Gentoo's package manager (portage) isn't capable of extracting lzip compressed tarballs without further action being taken inside of the build scripts (ebuilds). On the other hand portage can easily extract gzip-, bzip2-, lzma- and xz-compressed tarballs as the software which is needed to decompress such tarballs - unlike lzip - gets installed on all Gentoo systems by default. So that and a bug filed against Gentoo's ddrescue package[1] were my main motivations to start this request. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/485462 I think I gonna wait for ddrescue-1.18 to make a final decision on how to resolve that bug properly. Right now I still tend to recompress the ddrescue tarball. But that depends if forthcoming ddrescue-1.18 will hard-depend on lzip or not. > > Or in case you completely dislike that idea, would you be okay with > > me providing xz-compressed tarballs of ddrescue from my Gentoo > > dev-space? > > That would be nice (aka "less work for me"). But why xz? Is there a > conspiration to "Force people to start migrating to xz-utils"[3]? ;-) > > [3]http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/coreutils/ChangeLog Since more and more upstream projects tend to provide their tarballs xz compressed I assume that Gentoo was just jumping on the same horse here. I mean even the linux kernel tarballs are now xz compressed[2]. [2] ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/ > BTW, lzip compresses source tarballs a little more than xz. That's good to know. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe I can make some people in Gentoo considering adding lzip to the tools which are installed by default. > Best regards, > Antonio. Once again thanks for your time and thanks for making ddresuce the great tool it is right now :) Kind regards Lars
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-ddrescue mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
