Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 01:55:48AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Some time has passed and the current situation in sid is this: > > COMP=xz → 158 packages > COMP=gz → 5 packages > > The ones using gzip are: > > base-files_9.6_amd64.deb > base-passwd_3.5.39_amd64.deb > dpkg_1.18.10_amd64.deb > mawk_1.3.3-17_amd64.deb > sensible-utils_0.0.9_all.deb Thanks for your analysis. I agree that this ship has comprehensively sailed, so I've removed the gzip override from base-passwd. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
Hi! On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 13:33:35 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > It seems there's quite many binary packages in the base system using > xz as compressor instead of gzip, since the switch to xz as default, > which might make debootstrapping from non-Debian systems harder. After > running the follwing: > > $ debootstrap --download-only sid sid-root-path > $ cd sid-root-path > $ find -name '*.deb' | while read deb; do \ > if ar t $deb | grep -q data\.tar\.$COMP; then \ > echo $deb; \ > fi \ > done | sort > > with COMP=xz gives 145 packages, with COMP=gz it gives 21. So I guess > it would make sense to decide if people still care about bootstrapping > from other systems where xz-utils might not be available. […] Some time has passed and the current situation in sid is this: COMP=xz → 158 packages COMP=gz → 5 packages The ones using gzip are: base-files_9.6_amd64.deb base-passwd_3.5.39_amd64.deb dpkg_1.18.10_amd64.deb mawk_1.3.3-17_amd64.deb sensible-utils_0.0.9_all.deb I think we can clearly say that collectively we expect xz to be available when bootstrapping a Debian system. :) I'm thus going to switch dpkg.deb to use xz on the next upload. I've BCCed the other package maintainers as a heads up, because it seems using gzip when there's at least a single package in the base system using xz does not make much sense anyway. Thanks, Guillem
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Sep 02, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > I know, but if systems on which xz-utils is not easily available really > > exist then the interested parties could replace it with xzdec which is > > small and statically linked. > Is there such system or are we having an academic debate again? I am quite sure that this is an academic debate, this is why I recommended to continue using XZ. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 10:24, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > I know, but if systems on which xz-utils is not easily available really > > exist then the interested parties could replace it with xzdec which is > > small and statically linked. > > Is there such system or are we having an academic debate again? xz-utils are not very portable to old/weird systems. I could imagine someone wanting to run debootstrap, which can IIRC work with just sh and ar and tar, on FreeMiNT on an Atari. But even there, the recommended method of installing Debian/m68k is currently to start from either a tarball or an ext2fs filesystem image one can dd(1) to the HDD (I even took care to generate it on MirBSD using ext2fs revision 0 and no new features¹, so that other OSes with extremely basic ext2fs support can read/write it, prior to rebooting into it). Only problem with that is kernel modules (if needed, one can always crosscompile a custom initial kernel, though). But I’m sure the m68k porters will want to work on getting d-i back, anyway. So, I’d say that restricting the base system to gzip is no longer necessary for jessie. (Even though the idea to build a statically linked xzdec for the host OS is hard, e.g. where to find a libc that works with its old kernel in the Linux case, etc.) But do make sure to keep it to xz -6, at worst -7, never -9. ① Apparently, modern Linux kernels do not manage to leave the filesystem alone in those cases, and always introduce features that some old OSes don’t support. bye, //mirabilos -- [16:04:33] bkix: "veni vidi violini" [16:04:45] bkix: "ich kam, sah und vergeigte"... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1409021317420.22...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 10:24, Marco d'Itri wrote: > I know, but if systems on which xz-utils is not easily available really > exist then the interested parties could replace it with xzdec which is > small and statically linked. Is there such system or are we having an academic debate again? Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1409650489.3678407.162594529.173b5...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Sep 01, Colin Watson wrote: > > If anybody really cares then I suggest that they add support for xzdec > > to debootstrap. > debootstrap has supported data.tar.xz since 2010. The thing that's > relevant here, which is outside our control, is whether the non-Debian > systems from which one might be running debootstrap have xz-utils > available. I know, but if systems on which xz-utils is not easily available really exist then the interested parties could replace it with xzdec which is small and statically linked. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On 01/09/14 16:58, The Wanderer wrote: > Unless debootstrap relies on the outside source to perform that > decompression, of course, but in that case I'm not sure what it would > even mean to say that debootstrap "supports" xz in the first place. In this case "debootstrap supports xz" means "debootstrap knows that if the ar file contains *.tar.xz, it should be unpacked using xzcat". (See debootstrap's source code.) S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54049b24.3040...@debian.org
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/01/2014 at 11:45 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >> On Sep 01, Guillem Jover wrote: >> >>> with COMP=xz gives 145 packages, with COMP=gz it gives 21. So I >>> guess it would make sense to decide if people still care about >>> bootstrapping from other systems where xz-utils might not be >>> available. I think a >> >> Not at all. If anybody really cares then I suggest that they add >> support for xzdec to debootstrap. > > debootstrap has supported data.tar.xz since 2010. The thing that's > relevant here, which is outside our control, is whether the > non-Debian systems from which one might be running debootstrap have > xz-utils available. How so? If debootstrap supports xz decompression, then surely it doesn't matter whether some outside source for xz compression / decompression is available. Unless debootstrap relies on the outside source to perform that decompression, of course, but in that case I'm not sure what it would even mean to say that debootstrap "supports" xz in the first place. - -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUBJeZAAoJEASpNY00KDJrr0UQAK1JNg4kvfQSyXH2p175m1IJ Cqquz9ckaLU91vxraiOZEteslaWi4n1qCsQjueDLS9iCBBotTqWyVsGLpBf3Uhb3 2zMbElr7tLavUtcW4+3yfGVKjeQ8M3YtyV3z+SAJUIJmpKRNn2A0t1oWrDvmryRX hd/8bht6wNN2NaWAx4RI8jNukGljQne8tKmf2OCPLvANBHcKEM4SO6Q1LmmRjGDp UYKTh2+aFv/pwOGM1ndkYa2v8op6oXocbXm6DCi7fW1zXBZagApTms7dkSFmMOUV skGZtOWWk58331PCw3jImBVacTMHQ2/avW9PrJD3GB3sRZbM//oAue5nMagPdOuZ hVi8iEH6I0M4LQuknlNj6d7NP39oeB9kvzC4++xgvT8AYbSRsO36k+/+KynoK4c7 lD+2BsBJzgF04u/KpgzahIc0nyF4lozsSprH8xeZ3j+bdmy3SHzSPWyrzg5SQ/LA TxUa3eBAh82lnplBQ9HUddf8LzUaC7c02q0zkU1vuURM6w2mbld3X1u12MY9b9JP 5wXSu9cvcjsvI3U34/YUDfJWMNM8TWf61tEv8UUmTFbM74tPgb4wgD/4DcIX1M8/ ONUvzvSZ7TJHhskSBpeLVWazrXZcDuV7s0ou24g0iJ7M9bWACdt8z6AwuwQZrYcv 5OxFPhq7qcPwXzSQiLAh =r9e7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54049799.6020...@fastmail.fm
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 01, Guillem Jover wrote: > > with COMP=xz gives 145 packages, with COMP=gz it gives 21. So I guess > > it would make sense to decide if people still care about bootstrapping > > from other systems where xz-utils might not be available. I think a > > Not at all. > If anybody really cares then I suggest that they add support for xzdec > to debootstrap. debootstrap has supported data.tar.xz since 2010. The thing that's relevant here, which is outside our control, is whether the non-Debian systems from which one might be running debootstrap have xz-utils available. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140901154514.ga28...@riva.ucam.org
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
Hi! [ CCing Joey, as he was one of the people who seemed to care about this at the time, and might be able to improve the current situation, if he still cares, see below. ] On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 13:30:55 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 01/09/14 12:33, Guillem Jover wrote: > > It seems there's quite many binary packages in the base system using > > xz as compressor instead of gzip, since the switch to xz as default, > > which might make debootstrapping from non-Debian systems harder. > > According to your report, 145 out of 166 base packages use xz, and > nobody seems to have even noticed until now? I think that could be > considered to be evidence in favour of "nobody actually minds; xz all > round!" and a smaller download for the remaining 21 base system packages... Oh, but that could be simply because people on such systems debootstrap stable and not unstable? Here the checks again but with stable instead. With COMP=xz gives 5 with COMP=gz it gives 130, because the dpkg-deb default only got switched in 1.17.0. The 5 affected packages in wheezy are (which are not installed by all debootstrap variants): aptitude-common aptitude traceroute vim-common vim-tiny > As far as I can tell, the only additional requirement imposed on those > non-Debian systems is "you must have xzcat(1)"; and that could easily be > obtained by unpacking, for instance, wheezy's busybox-static. (sid's > busybox-static is xz-compressed.) Yeah, as I mentioned at the time I don't really mind either way, it's just something I noticed and wanted to let people who might care to be aware of the current situation, some time before the freeze. On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 13:33:35 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > I think a > lintian check would be pretty easy (which could key on the Priority of > the packages), and might help people to know when to compress using > gzip, as long as the archive override is kept up-to-date, that is > (I've to file some bugs about that). Actually this does not make sense, because lintian does not check the archive, and only relies on the local packages. It would need to be some other QA tool that performs such download-only debootstrap and checks the binary packages. Something that comes to mind, is that dh_builddeb could check the package Priority field in DEBIAN/control and chose gzip if it's either required or important. That might require to update any package with a mismatched Priority from the archive though. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140901131650.ga31...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On Sep 01, Guillem Jover wrote: > with COMP=xz gives 145 packages, with COMP=gz it gives 21. So I guess > it would make sense to decide if people still care about bootstrapping > from other systems where xz-utils might not be available. I think a Not at all. If anybody really cares then I suggest that they add support for xzdec to debootstrap. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
On 01/09/14 12:33, Guillem Jover wrote: > It seems there's quite many binary packages in the base system using > xz as compressor instead of gzip, since the switch to xz as default, > which might make debootstrapping from non-Debian systems harder. According to your report, 145 out of 166 base packages use xz, and nobody seems to have even noticed until now? I think that could be considered to be evidence in favour of "nobody actually minds; xz all round!" and a smaller download for the remaining 21 base system packages... As far as I can tell, the only additional requirement imposed on those non-Debian systems is "you must have xzcat(1)"; and that could easily be obtained by unpacking, for instance, wheezy's busybox-static. (sid's busybox-static is xz-compressed.) S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540466ff.8080...@debian.org
Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip
Hi! It seems there's quite many binary packages in the base system using xz as compressor instead of gzip, since the switch to xz as default, which might make debootstrapping from non-Debian systems harder. After running the follwing: $ debootstrap --download-only sid sid-root-path $ cd sid-root-path $ find -name '*.deb' | while read deb; do \ if ar t $deb | grep -q data\.tar\.$COMP; then \ echo $deb; \ fi \ done | sort with COMP=xz gives 145 packages, with COMP=gz it gives 21. So I guess it would make sense to decide if people still care about bootstrapping from other systems where xz-utils might not be available. I think a lintian check would be pretty easy (which could key on the Priority of the packages), and might help people to know when to compress using gzip, as long as the archive override is kept up-to-date, that is (I've to file some bugs about that). Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140901113335.ga8...@gaara.hadrons.org
