On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:28:11PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I would kindly request you to at least use tar.xz (rather than tar.gz) for > the tarballs. (What you use as the Windows format is something you need to > sort out with the Windows people.) The fact that tar.gz is still the most > downloaded is probably mostly out of habit, or maybe your download site is > directing to them by default (which ought to be fixed anyway, even if you > were to keep both). tar.gz has no advantage over tar.xz, it is just a lot > larger. Switching to the tar.gz tarballs (from the tar.xz tarballs that are > currently used) would increase the size of distributions' source packages > (source RPM etc.) significantly. > > It is sad that the legacy gzip compression is living a renaissance due to > automatic tarball exports from GitHub and the like producing only that > format. It should finally be retired now that there are algorithms that are > just as open and that compress significantly better. At least for projects > like Qt that produce their own tarballs and are already able to produce xz- > compressed ones, I see no reason whatsoever to switch back to the obsolete > gzip.
+1, please leave tar.xz instead of tar.gz. Users of all modern UNIX-like systems are able to decompress tar.xz, so .gz has really no advantage over .xz. -- Dmitry Shachnev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development