On 09/04/2014 04:58 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On 09/04/2014 10:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Christian Kastner wrote: >>> That is the key question, and I believe considering the worst possible >>> cost -- a package that cannot be unpacked, as in #757740 -- the >>> trade-off is not worth it. >> >> IIRC, I asked last year already to patch dpkg to limit the >> xz compression levels to -7 (and treat -8 and -9 as -7). >> That was per-arch and mostly with buildd concerns, but this >> bugreport shows that it’s high time we do that, as those >> little 64 MiB RAM machines are available for a release >> architecture (probably several). > > A per-arch limit would not address the problem with installing arch:all > packages. > > Limiting the compression level to 7 by silently clamping higher values > is also not nice (IMO): it prevents people using very high compression > for internal packages. > > What about a lintian warning (error, whatever) instead? > > Ansgar
What about more simply filling bugs for those packages where it seems inappropriate to use z9 instead of (wrongly) generalizing? :) On 09/04/2014 05:40 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: > I support that... I don't. > lintian warning for non-default compression > lintian (auto-reject) error for > 7 Please don't do this. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54230a14.4050...@debian.org