> From: Jonas M. Gastal <jgas...@profusion.mobi> >To: development@qt-project.org; BRM <bm_witn...@yahoo.com> >Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:02 PM >Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5 beta > >On Thursday 30 August 2012 11:48:38 BRM wrote: >> tar.bz2 is pretty common, along with tar.gz. >> tar.xy, OTOH, is quite rare. >> >> Googling tar.bz2 yields good results what to do with such a file. >> Googling tar.xy yields nothing useful about what compression engine is used >> even used; Googling "compressed file extensions" yielded Wikipedia's list >> of archive formats which finally produced some useful info - that it's an >> LZMA2 compression. >> >> While I understand that tar.xy may be smaller it's use general use seems to >> be limited so unless there is a supported platform/target that only uses >> tar.xy, I'd suggest dropping it and keeping tar.bz2 instead. Given a choice >> between a bzip and gzip, I'd personally choose bzips. >> >> If space is a concern, then zip and tar.gz are probably sufficient for >> distribution. >> >> $0.02 >> >> Ben > >I'm not sure wether it's just a typo, but you consistently write .xy so I'm >going to assume not. Also, first and third tar.xz results in google for me >are: >http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1116012 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xz > >Not being a packager I don't know, but I have a hard time imagining it's >harder to change your packaging scripts from Qt4 to Qt5 than from tar.bz2 to >tar.xz. >
A typo and misreading on my part. And yes, correcting that does yield more pertinent information. I'd still argue it is good to keep tar.bz2. Ben _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
