Le mer. 20 mars 2019 20:43, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> a écrit :
> On 03/20/19 19:59, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > (+Daniel and MST) > > > > On 03/20/19 16:58, Peter Maydell wrote: > > >> A question: does this absolutely have to be 'xz' and not bzip ? > > > > I think bzip2 should work fine too: > > > > 1146804 edk2-aarch64-code.fd.xz | 1177603 > edk2-aarch64-code.fd.bz2 > > 1147852 edk2-arm-code.fd.xz | 1173662 edk2-arm-code.fd.bz2 > > 10008 edk2-arm-vars.fd.xz | 263 edk2-arm-vars.fd.bz2 > > 1674764 edk2-i386-code.fd.xz | 1688659 edk2-i386-code.fd.bz2 > > 1870024 edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.xz | 1881979 > edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2 > > 320 edk2-i386-vars.fd.xz | 190 edk2-i386-vars.fd.bz2 > > 1655276 edk2-x86_64-code.fd.xz | 1669280 edk2-x86_64-code.fd.bz2 > > 1889024 edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.xz | 1901210 > edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.bz2 > > 9394072 total | 9492846 total > > > > ~1% size increase in total. > > > > If we switch to bzip2, should I hurry for 4.0, or take my time in the > next development cycle? > > An alternative to rebasing / reworking the series in-place (for > xz-->bz2) and to missing the 4.0 bus consequently, would be to merge the > PULL req as is, and for me to submit an incremental update, for the > xz-->bz2 replacement. I think that would qualify as a bugfix, and be > eligible for the hard freeze too. > A simple fix could be ./configure checks for xz and if not installed kindly ask for installation, or as a warning then if unable to install (user without root access) simply doesn't uncompress. > Thanks > Laszlo > >
