Le mer. 20 mars 2019 21:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> a écrit :
> 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. > ./configure detect no xz and select --disable-blobs? >> Thanks >> Laszlo >> >>
