Andrew Pantyukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We had a talk with naddy about it, but since there are people > using archivers/lzma with whatever syntax it has, in scripted > environments, I'm inclined not to surprise them very much. I > think a wrapper can be added to lzmautils for full > backwards-compatibility, I may look at it later. > > Also, the lzmautils website claims it's of alpha-quality, so I'm > also hesitant to rely on it completely.
Yes. The plan is to reorganize the code into a full liblzma and a lzma frontend program, just like libz/gzip and libbz2/bzip2. Importantly, they also intend to change the file format, probably by wrapping it into a container that has a fixed signature at the start and allows for integrity checking. So far this is still vaporware, but if it comes to pass, I expect we will shortly see .tar.lzma (.tlz) archives in the new format and the SDK lzma will probably not be able to handle them. > OTOH, changing lzmautils' lzma to another name would probably > confuse gtar (I'm not sure though). This could be easily patched. However, I expect other operating systems, particularly Linux, to standardize on LZMA Utils for _the_ lzma program, and I don't want FreeBSD to be the odd man out there. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"