Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 05:12:22PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > So I'd say .xz support will be in place in ~ 1 or 2 months. Definitely for > GNOME > 3.2, but hopefully way sooner. Great! Then I'll first everything from .tar.gz + .tar.bz2 to .tar.bz2 + .tar.xz as transition. Then before GNOME 3.2 I'd think it is best to switch to .tar.xz only. So timeline: ~1 month: don't generate .tar.gz, instead generate .tar.xz ~4 months: don't generate .tar.bz2 (after the last 3.0.x GNOME stable release) Above is not official. Just my thoughts atm. I need to wait for further real-life usage of the ftpadmin script, 3.0, new schedule, wider announcement, etc. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 19/03/11 12:25, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 19/03/11 11:19, Olav Vitters wrote: >> As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support >> .xz? > > They have included this item in their agenda for the meeting. I've told them > that GNOME plans to switch to .xz soon and that not allowing that in Debian > would mean we'd need to repackage upstream tarballs (which is bad). > > I'll let you know if/when they make any decisions. The meeting is over, and their summary on this point is: - For multiarch and XZ handling, we have asked for updates to python-apt in stable which will simplify adding these features. Assuming that the SRMs accept the update which the apt team are helpfully preparing for us, we'll add these as soon as we can get the package updated on franck. So I'd say .xz support will be in place in ~ 1 or 2 months. Definitely for GNOME 3.2, but hopefully way sooner. Cheers, Emilio ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 22/03/2011 13:05, Olav Vitters wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:42:01PM +, Ghee Teo wrote: On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: I'd like to understand what the impact would be. So, whom would it affect (what kind of groups: users/developers/OS team/something else)? There are 2 aspect of these I can see at least: Internal usage: Internal as in Oracle? Yes. Any timeline on when .xz format would be able to be unpacked on Solaris? There is an internal bug being tracked for this. The latest indicator that it will be in for the next Solaris release. However, if anyone who want to build anything for Solaris 10 (which was shipped 7 years ago) will not be able to since xz is unlikely to be back ported for that release. Ok, then there should be some transition period between .gz+.bz2 -> .xz. Perhaps with .bz2+.xz as an intermediate option. Yes. I think this should very good. This solves my concern really :) What are the tarball module for gnome-shell 3.1.0 include? If these do not include majority of the GNOME 2.x, it may reduce the problem scope significantly. gnome-shell is just one tarball/module. Could you expand on what you mean with GNOME 2.x? There will not be any stable releases for GNOME 2.x, so I am not sure what you're asking for. My understanding that going forwards, the plan is just to have .xz. My concern is that the version of glib2 and upwards used for GNOME 3.x are still available in .gz2 until we have .xz by default. Due to Sun Ray requirements, we are still investigating how we can adopt gnome-shell in that particular environment. Thanks again for addressing our concerns. I will try to post back when we have xz in Solaris. -Ghee Maybe you mean new software releases which could still compile against GNOME 2.x? To be clear: All *existing* files on ftp.gnome.org will work. So nothing which refers to current versions would break. It only concerns new versions. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:42:01PM +, Ghee Teo wrote: > On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: > >I'd like to > >understand what the impact would be. So, whom would it affect (what kind > >of groups: users/developers/OS team/something else)? > There are 2 aspect of these I can see at least: > Internal usage: Internal as in Oracle? > External users: Ok. > [1] http://pkgbuild.sourceforge.net/spec-files-extra/ Checked this, seems not all spec files use bz2. Some still use gz. > >Any timeline on > >when .xz format would be able to be unpacked on Solaris? > There is an internal bug being tracked for this. The latest indicator > that it will be in for the next Solaris release. However, if anyone > who want to build anything for Solaris 10 (which was shipped 7 years > ago) will not be able to since xz is unlikely to be back ported for > that release. Ok, then there should be some transition period between .gz+.bz2 -> .xz. Perhaps with .bz2+.xz as an intermediate option. > What are the tarball module for gnome-shell 3.1.0 include? > If these do not include majority of the GNOME 2.x, it may reduce the > problem scope significantly. gnome-shell is just one tarball/module. Could you expand on what you mean with GNOME 2.x? There will not be any stable releases for GNOME 2.x, so I am not sure what you're asking for. Maybe you mean new software releases which could still compile against GNOME 2.x? To be clear: All *existing* files on ftp.gnome.org will work. So nothing which refers to current versions would break. It only concerns new versions. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 21/03/2011 17:27, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Ghee Teo wrote: On 21/03/2011 17:02, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Ghee Teowrote: On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to compile source code modules will have difficulties. That is exactly what I meant. So: How do Solaris users get GNOME packages? Via ftp.gnome.org? Yes. We download them from ftp.gnome.org. By "we", do you mean end users or packagers? My "we" refers to users. Aren't only packagers (and distro build servers, etc) and advanced users impacted by the change to .xz? No. packagers are the source codes providers. Users are the source code consumers. I was assuming this model: Maintainers are source code providers. Packagers consume and produce binary packages. End-users consume those binaries and don't care about how the packagers get the source code. Ok. We are just using different terminology. My users is really your Packagers. In one of the mail replied to Olav earlier on still awaiting moderator approval explained more. But the basic difficulty is that xz is still not provided by Solaris 11 by default yet. While we as the Desktop packager in Oracle could maintain a private copy, but other Solaris packagers will have to do the same and that is not nice. -Ghee GNOME requires both groups of users to exist meaningfully :) Sure. I guess I just didn't realize that Solaris end users were consuming GNOME source tarballs. Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 21/03/2011 17:02, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Ghee Teo wrote: On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to compile source code modules will have difficulties. That is exactly what I meant. So: How do Solaris users get GNOME packages? Via ftp.gnome.org? Yes. We download them from ftp.gnome.org. By "we", do you mean end users or packagers? My "we" refers to users. Aren't only packagers (and distro build servers, etc) and advanced users impacted by the change to .xz? No. packagers are the source codes providers. Users are the source code consumers. GNOME requires both groups of users to exist meaningfully :) -Ghee Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Ghee Teo wrote: > On 21/03/2011 17:02, Sandy Armstrong wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Ghee Teo wrote: >>> >>> On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: > > I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* > supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to > compile source code modules will have difficulties. That is exactly what I meant. So: How do Solaris users get GNOME packages? Via ftp.gnome.org? >>> >>> Yes. We download them from ftp.gnome.org. >> >> By "we", do you mean end users or packagers? > > My "we" refers to users. >> >> Aren't only packagers (and distro build servers, etc) and advanced >> users impacted by the change to .xz? > > No. packagers are the source codes providers. > Users are the source code consumers. I was assuming this model: Maintainers are source code providers. Packagers consume and produce binary packages. End-users consume those binaries and don't care about how the packagers get the source code. > GNOME requires both groups of users to exist meaningfully :) Sure. I guess I just didn't realize that Solaris end users were consuming GNOME source tarballs. Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Ghee Teo wrote: > On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: >>> >>> I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for >>> GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* >>> supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to >>> compile source code modules will have difficulties. >> >> That is exactly what I meant. >> >> So: >> How do Solaris users get GNOME packages? Via ftp.gnome.org? > > Yes. We download them from ftp.gnome.org. By "we", do you mean end users or packagers? Aren't only packagers (and distro build servers, etc) and advanced users impacted by the change to .xz? Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 21/03/11 15:29, Olav Vitters wrote: > ATM I really like to switch to the new script (ftpadmin) before 3.0 as > it correctly handles NEWS files and .0 releases.. \o/ That always annoyed me. Thanks! Emilio ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 21/03/2011 12:29, Olav Vitters wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to compile source code modules will have difficulties. That is exactly what I meant. So: How do Solaris users get GNOME packages? Via ftp.gnome.org? Yes. We download them from ftp.gnome.org. I'd like to understand what the impact would be. So, whom would it affect (what kind of groups: users/developers/OS team/something else)? There are 2 aspect of these I can see at least: Internal usage: The whole of our GNOME distros are from ftp.gnome.org. Currently we have *hundreds* of spec files that download tarballs from there. We used .bz primarily. So when that is removed, going forwards, we will have to update all these spec file and on the assumption that we will get xz support in Solaris. External users: These is really hard to quantify, there are other distros that stemmed from once the OpenSolaris distribution uses the GNOME spec files we created. E.g. BeleniX. Some hobby users also uses SFE[1] spec files for Solaris. They will also suffer if Solaris does not provide xz. [1] http://pkgbuild.sourceforge.net/spec-files-extra/ Any timeline on when .xz format would be able to be unpacked on Solaris? There is an internal bug being tracked for this. The latest indicator that it will be in for the next Solaris release. However, if anyone who want to build anything for Solaris 10 (which was shipped 7 years ago) will not be able to since xz is unlikely to be back ported for that release. What are the tarball module for gnome-shell 3.1.0 include? If these do not include majority of the GNOME 2.x, it may reduce the problem scope significantly. Thanks, -Ghee ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:10:58PM +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > 2011/3/21 Olav Vitters : > > Could you expand on the pain? > > Basically most distros won't ship it by default, at least not for now. > Solaris/RHEL/SLED/CentOS are probably the worst cases here. But also > custom environments (we are talking about things like glib heavily > used in embedded...). RHEL is actually fine. Maybe not installed by default (no idea), but xz is available on RHEL5 and RHEL6 (main repos, not EPEL). > I'm not saying these are showstoppers, I am saying that we should give > them some time to adapt, try to encourage Fedora/OpenSuSE/Ubuntu to > ship lzma by default would be a good starting point. Letting the > enterprise guys at least provide packages/repos for it would be nice > as well. Ok. > It is true that people using packages more heavily are the distros and > jhbuild-ish setups, but they automate their infrastructure in a fixed > setup anyway so they are not the ones we should worry the most. I'm > thinking about the casual people trying to build a given tarball from > some platform and not being able to. Maybe we should actually make a > difference between packages from the desktop release set and the > platform/development ones in this regard? (i.e. shipping bzip2/xz for > things like glib/gtk/vala/gjs and just xz for cheese/gnome-shell/... > and personal projects? install-module/ftpadmin doesn't know about core vs desktop. Of course possible to make exceptions if there is a need; that would need to be done based on the module name. I'll ask the gtk+ developers for their thoughts. Anyone know how can I contact embedded developers/GNOME mobile people? > Do you think having a .bzip2/.xz transition time would make sense or > make things any better? Say dual during 3.0 and just .xz for 3.2 > onwards? Perhaps.. let me get back on that. ATM I really like to switch to the new script (ftpadmin) before 3.0 as it correctly handles NEWS files and .0 releases.. But it depends on the amount of testing can be done beforehand. Busy periods for everyone :) [..] > > 6) Xz makes 'install-module' *much* slower; only one format would > > alleviate it a bit > > 6 seems a reason not to :-) hehe. I hope with .xz only that people will set that configure option which would already create a .xz. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
Sorry Olav, I thought this is actually going to happen soon and the decision was set in stone. 2011/3/21 Olav Vitters : > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:21:38PM +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: >> to me that it will actually be easier to request our sponsors >> (RedHat/Novell/Oracle...) for more storage than pushing everyone into >> the pain of having to deal with such unfamiliar format. We are > > Could you expand on the pain? Basically most distros won't ship it by default, at least not for now. Solaris/RHEL/SLED/CentOS are probably the worst cases here. But also custom environments (we are talking about things like glib heavily used in embedded...). I'm not saying these are showstoppers, I am saying that we should give them some time to adapt, try to encourage Fedora/OpenSuSE/Ubuntu to ship lzma by default would be a good starting point. Letting the enterprise guys at least provide packages/repos for it would be nice as well. It is true that people using packages more heavily are the distros and jhbuild-ish setups, but they automate their infrastructure in a fixed setup anyway so they are not the ones we should worry the most. I'm thinking about the casual people trying to build a given tarball from some platform and not being able to. Maybe we should actually make a difference between packages from the desktop release set and the platform/development ones in this regard? (i.e. shipping bzip2/xz for things like glib/gtk/vala/gjs and just xz for cheese/gnome-shell/... and personal projects? Do you think having a .bzip2/.xz transition time would make sense or make things any better? Say dual during 3.0 and just .xz for 3.2 onwards? > I won't assume, I'm in no hurry. Nothing will happen before I fully > understand implications and everyone is aware (d-d-l is just to plan; > not to check impact). Yup, sorry, I thought you were going ahead actually. :-) >> I am not trying to criticise the effort rather than trying to >> understand why is this such a big win. > > Various reasons: > 1) Way less storage space required > 2) Everything stored needs to be backed up > Seems simple, but a lot of the new machines we have are not backed > up. > 3) Less storage means quicker backups > 4) Total size of ftp.gnome.org will mean how many people will be able to > mirror it > 5) I want more mirrors in different continents > ATM, we have 1. I'd like around 5, but that means 5 times the current > bandwidth. Which is free, but slow (USA->.nl) > 6) Xz makes 'install-module' *much* slower; only one format would > alleviate it a bit 6 seems a reason not to :-) > But mostly: > 1) I'm still investigating / it is still being planned > 2) If every problem can be solved, I don't see why not (#4) > 3) Currently, I think most users of ftp.gnome.org are either packagers, > or developers. > 4) I understand it will have an impact, but from my current > understanding of the tarball users, I don't believe it it an > inconvience > Seems easier switch than CVS->SVN->Git. > 5) Already in use > From what I noticed, GNU already is .xz only > 6) Open to feedback > ATM I haven't noticed anything major; though: > *) have to await the more details about Solaris > *) didn't ask for feedback > 7) I'm in *no* hurry. > > -- > Regards, > Olav > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:52:17PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > But mostly: Forgot my blue sky idea that I've almost completed: I'm working on automatically giving maintainers access to upload things to ftp.gnome.org. Then we'd be able to give way more people the ability to upload tarballs (everyone who is set as maintainer in a doap file). That's ~125 additional people (from memory). As it will be much easier to upload to ftp.gnome.org, we'll probably get way more uploads. Plan is that within 1 hour after adding some person in a doap file, the person is able to upload tarballs. No manual steps (e.g. accounts team or anything). I expect more projects to use GNOME infra as a result (anyones pet project will automatically have). I hope that savings by having one format will be offset by the additional usage. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:21:38PM +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > What is the reasoning behind this move? Just storage savings? It seems For xz: 1) Much faster download 2) Much smaller 3) Doesn't use a lot of memory when decompressing (9MB) 4) Uncompress speed seems similar to bz2 (as in: don't notice a difference). > to me that it will actually be easier to request our sponsors > (RedHat/Novell/Oracle...) for more storage than pushing everyone into > the pain of having to deal with such unfamiliar format. We are Could you expand on the pain? > releasing .gz and .bz2 at the same time at the moment. Getting rid of > .gz would be reasonable, bz2 is supported everywhere for many years, > whereas .xz, well, is the first time I hear about it. We cannot assume > that the change won't have an impact just because most modern Linux > distros have packages to support the format. I won't assume, I'm in no hurry. Nothing will happen before I fully understand implications and everyone is aware (d-d-l is just to plan; not to check impact). > I am not trying to criticise the effort rather than trying to > understand why is this such a big win. Various reasons: 1) Way less storage space required 2) Everything stored needs to be backed up Seems simple, but a lot of the new machines we have are not backed up. 3) Less storage means quicker backups 4) Total size of ftp.gnome.org will mean how many people will be able to mirror it 5) I want more mirrors in different continents ATM, we have 1. I'd like around 5, but that means 5 times the current bandwidth. Which is free, but slow (USA->.nl) 6) Xz makes 'install-module' *much* slower; only one format would alleviate it a bit But mostly: 1) I'm still investigating / it is still being planned 2) If every problem can be solved, I don't see why not (#4) 3) Currently, I think most users of ftp.gnome.org are either packagers, or developers. 4) I understand it will have an impact, but from my current understanding of the tarball users, I don't believe it it an inconvience Seems easier switch than CVS->SVN->Git. 5) Already in use From what I noticed, GNU already is .xz only 6) Open to feedback ATM I haven't noticed anything major; though: *) have to await the more details about Solaris *) didn't ask for feedback 7) I'm in *no* hurry. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:21, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > Hello Olav, > > What is the reasoning behind this move? Just storage savings? It seems > to me that it will actually be easier to request our sponsors > (RedHat/Novell/Oracle...) for more storage than pushing everyone into > the pain of having to deal with such unfamiliar format. We are > releasing .gz and .bz2 at the same time at the moment. Getting rid of > .gz would be reasonable, bz2 is supported everywhere for many years, > whereas .xz, well, is the first time I hear about it. We cannot assume > that the change won't have an impact just because most modern Linux > distros have packages to support the format. > > I am not trying to criticise the effort rather than trying to > understand why is this such a big win. The explanation is in the following previous thread: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-March/msg2.html The problem is not storage, it is bandwidth. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
Hello Olav, What is the reasoning behind this move? Just storage savings? It seems to me that it will actually be easier to request our sponsors (RedHat/Novell/Oracle...) for more storage than pushing everyone into the pain of having to deal with such unfamiliar format. We are releasing .gz and .bz2 at the same time at the moment. Getting rid of .gz would be reasonable, bz2 is supported everywhere for many years, whereas .xz, well, is the first time I hear about it. We cannot assume that the change won't have an impact just because most modern Linux distros have packages to support the format. I am not trying to criticise the effort rather than trying to understand why is this such a big win. Cheers, Alberto Ruiz 2011/3/21 Olav Vitters : > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: >> > I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for >> > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* >> > supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to >> > compile source code modules will have difficulties. >> >> That is exactly what I meant. > > This statement is referring to: >> > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* > > I've filed a bug for jhbuild btw, to check for xz and to be able to > install it. > > -- > Regards, > Olav > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: > > I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for > > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* > > supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to > > compile source code modules will have difficulties. > > That is exactly what I meant. This statement is referring to: > > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* I've filed a bug for jhbuild btw, to check for xz and to be able to install it. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:55:05AM +, Ghee Teo wrote: > I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for > GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* > supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to > compile source code modules will have difficulties. That is exactly what I meant. So: How do Solaris users get GNOME packages? Via ftp.gnome.org? I'd like to understand what the impact would be. So, whom would it affect (what kind of groups: users/developers/OS team/something else)? Any timeline on when .xz format would be able to be unpacked on Solaris? Note that it would only affect new uploads *after the change is made*. So not anything currently on ftp.gnome.org, nor anything being uploaded atm. E.g. if there was a switch after gnome 3.0, the gnome-shell 3.1.0 tarball would show up as .tar.xz only. The gnome-shell 3.0.0 tarball would be available as .tar.gz and .tar.bz2. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
I hope this does not imply or infer that all the source tarball for GNOME will be uploaded in .xz format only. Solaris is *not* supporting .xz by default yet. This means, anyone who want to compile source code modules will have difficulties. Just want to clarify. -Ghee On 19/03/2011 11:19, Olav Vitters wrote: Note: breaking thread on purpose. On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 03:15:34PM +, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: From a Debian POV, we can't upload .xz upstream tarballs yet (dpkg supports it, but the ftp-masters don't allow it), though most likely that will change soon. Could you ask when they'd allow that? And please mention we're considering switching. Don't want it to result in people compressing again though. I'm in the finishing stages to have all our scripts support .tar.xz (install-module, release team scripts). Once that is complete, I plan to send an 'intend to switch' announcement mail. As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support .xz? Note: the only reason the .tar.xz support is taking so long is because I'm rewriting everything (see sysadmin-bin and releng modules). Further, if you want the Python tarball module to automatically support .tar.xz, see the ftpadmin script in sysadmin-bin module for a way (works with Python 2.6; requires pyliblzma). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:45:31AM -0700, Baybal Ni wrote: > What is xz? It is a different way to compress files. See http://tukaani.org/xz/ You have various method to compress a file. Commonly used ones are .gz and .bz2. Then there was .lzma shortly, but it has been superseded by .xz. The benefit of .xz is that it creates much smaller files. Decompression is fast. We'll use default compression options, so it'll only use 9MB of memory to decompress. Any recent distro will have xz as a package. Further, on Windows you can use 7zip to open these files. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
What is xz? On 19 March 2011 07:57, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:55:18PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >> 2011/3/19 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort : >> > On 19/03/11 11:19, Olav Vitters wrote: >> >> As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support >> >> .xz? >> > >> > They have included this item in their agenda for the meeting. I've told >> > them >> > that GNOME plans to switch to .xz soon and that not allowing that in Debian >> > would mean we'd need to repackage upstream tarballs (which is bad). >> >> Would tar.xz be the only available format or do you plan to keep both >> .gz and .xz tarballs >> (as currently there are .gz and .bz2)? > > Only .tar.xz. > > -- > Regards, > Olav > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:55:18PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2011/3/19 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort : > > On 19/03/11 11:19, Olav Vitters wrote: > >> As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support > >> .xz? > > > > They have included this item in their agenda for the meeting. I've told them > > that GNOME plans to switch to .xz soon and that not allowing that in Debian > > would mean we'd need to repackage upstream tarballs (which is bad). > > Would tar.xz be the only available format or do you plan to keep both > .gz and .xz tarballs > (as currently there are .gz and .bz2)? Only .tar.xz. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
2011/3/19 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort : > On 19/03/11 11:19, Olav Vitters wrote: >> Note: breaking thread on purpose. >> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 03:15:34PM +, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: From a Debian POV, we can't upload .xz upstream tarballs yet (dpkg supports it, but the ftp-masters don't allow it), though most likely that will change soon. >>> >>> Could you ask when they'd allow that? And please mention we're >>> considering switching. Don't want it to result in people compressing >>> again though. >> >> I'm in the finishing stages to have all our scripts support .tar.xz >> (install-module, release team scripts). Once that is complete, I plan to >> send an 'intend to switch' announcement mail. >> >> As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support >> .xz? > > They have included this item in their agenda for the meeting. I've told them > that GNOME plans to switch to .xz soon and that not allowing that in Debian > would mean we'd need to repackage upstream tarballs (which is bad). Would tar.xz be the only available format or do you plan to keep both .gz and .xz tarballs (as currently there are .gz and .bz2)? Michel -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
On 19/03/11 11:19, Olav Vitters wrote: > Note: breaking thread on purpose. > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 03:15:34PM +, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> From a Debian POV, we can't upload .xz upstream tarballs yet (dpkg supports >>> it, >>> but the ftp-masters don't allow it), though most likely that will change >>> soon. >> >> Could you ask when they'd allow that? And please mention we're >> considering switching. Don't want it to result in people compressing >> again though. > > I'm in the finishing stages to have all our scripts support .tar.xz > (install-module, release team scripts). Once that is complete, I plan to > send an 'intend to switch' announcement mail. > > As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support > .xz? They have included this item in their agenda for the meeting. I've told them that GNOME plans to switch to .xz soon and that not allowing that in Debian would mean we'd need to repackage upstream tarballs (which is bad). I'll let you know if/when they make any decisions. Cheers, Emilio ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Using .tar.xz only on ftp.gnome.org (was: install-module / ftp.gnome.org / master.gnome.org)
Note: breaking thread on purpose. On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 03:15:34PM +, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > From a Debian POV, we can't upload .xz upstream tarballs yet (dpkg supports > > it, > > but the ftp-masters don't allow it), though most likely that will change > > soon. > > Could you ask when they'd allow that? And please mention we're > considering switching. Don't want it to result in people compressing > again though. I'm in the finishing stages to have all our scripts support .tar.xz (install-module, release team scripts). Once that is complete, I plan to send an 'intend to switch' announcement mail. As a pre-warning, could you please ask the ftp-masters again to support .xz? Note: the only reason the .tar.xz support is taking so long is because I'm rewriting everything (see sysadmin-bin and releng modules). Further, if you want the Python tarball module to automatically support .tar.xz, see the ftpadmin script in sysadmin-bin module for a way (works with Python 2.6; requires pyliblzma). -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
