Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
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]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The real problem with lzma right now is that lzmautils (already marked as > incompatible with lzma) installs its own lzma executable, with incompatible > command-line arguments :-( I would have preferred for what is now lzmautils to actually replace the lzma port, but Andrew wasn't happy with that. The LZMA Utils program follows the usual command line syntax for a Unix compressor, in agreement with compress/gzip/bzip2. I think this is the right way to go, and more importantly, I expect the Linux herd to move into that direction. GNU tar already includes support for lzma and it expects the one from LZMA Utils. > Maybe, instead of marking the ports as mutually incompatible, one of them > could be modified to install executables under different names?.. Sure. The question is, which program do people expect when they type "lzma" and which one should be renamed? -- 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]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
вівторок 22 квітень 2008 11:00 до, Andrew Pantyukhin Ви написали: > Also, the lzmautils website claims it's of alpha-quality, so I'm > also hesitant to rely on it completely. At any rate, I think > having a reference implementation of lzma util in ports is a good > thing. OTOH, changing lzmautils' lzma to another name would > probably confuse gtar (I'm not sure though). Well, we can patch gtar to call glzma or some such... -mi ## The information contained in this communication is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you have received this communication, and are not a named recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ## ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > вівторок 22 квітень 2008 06:34 до, Andrew Pantyukhin Ви написали: > > So I guess we'll have to stick to using lzma from ports for now. > > Well, we lived with bzip2 from ports for quite a while... > > The real problem with lzma right now is that lzmautils (already marked as > incompatible with lzma) installs its own lzma executable, with incompatible > command-line arguments :-( > > Maybe, instead of marking the ports as mutually incompatible, one of them > could be modified to install executables under different names?.. 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. At any rate, I think having a reference implementation of lzma util in ports is a good thing. OTOH, changing lzmautils' lzma to another name would probably confuse gtar (I'm not sure though). ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
вівторок 22 квітень 2008 06:34 до, Andrew Pantyukhin Ви написали: > So I guess we'll have to stick to using lzma from ports for now. Well, we lived with bzip2 from ports for quite a while... The real problem with lzma right now is that lzmautils (already marked as incompatible with lzma) installs its own lzma executable, with incompatible command-line arguments :-( Maybe, instead of marking the ports as mutually incompatible, one of them could be modified to install executables under different names?.. -mi ## The information contained in this communication is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. If you have received this communication, and are not a named recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ## ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 08:57:08AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:34:39PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:42:24PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > That's well hidden (DOC/lzam.txt in the tarball). Someone > > > should produce some sort of lzma-lite distribution that only > > > does the basics. Then this could be a practical option. > > > > Unfortunately, a closer look dispelled the hope. The > > public-domained files only show how to use the GPL'ed ones. I had > > a conversation with the author, who is worried about incompatible > > formats being spawned if he releases lzma from under LGPL. He > > might change his mind in the future, though. > > Too bad. :( FWIW, I don't see any significant, incompatible competitors > to bzip2 or ogg vorbis (for example). It seems that GPL infects not only software, but minds also, with pure FUD. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:34:39PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:42:24PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > That's well hidden (DOC/lzam.txt in the tarball). Someone > > should produce some sort of lzma-lite distribution that only > > does the basics. Then this could be a practical option. > > Unfortunately, a closer look dispelled the hope. The > public-domained files only show how to use the GPL'ed ones. I had > a conversation with the author, who is worried about incompatible > formats being spawned if he releases lzma from under LGPL. He > might change his mind in the future, though. Too bad. :( FWIW, I don't see any significant, incompatible competitors to bzip2 or ogg vorbis (for example). -- Brooks pgpS3zmRzUk8r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:04:39PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Pantyukhin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:42:24PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > That's well hidden (DOC/lzam.txt in the tarball). Someone > > > should produce some sort of lzma-lite distribution that only > > > does the basics. Then this could be a practical option. > > > > Unfortunately, a closer look dispelled the hope. The > > public-domained files only show how to use the GPL'ed ones. I had > > a conversation with the author, who is worried about incompatible > > formats being spawned if he releases lzma from under LGPL. He > > might change his mind in the future, though. > > > > So I guess we'll have to stick to using lzma from ports for now. > > Maybe releasing the extracting code under public domain? It doesn't provide the necessary "protection" since the compressing code need not be distributed by whoever profits from incompatibilities. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Pantyukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:42:24PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > That's well hidden (DOC/lzam.txt in the tarball). Someone > > should produce some sort of lzma-lite distribution that only > > does the basics. Then this could be a practical option. > > Unfortunately, a closer look dispelled the hope. The > public-domained files only show how to use the GPL'ed ones. I had > a conversation with the author, who is worried about incompatible > formats being spawned if he releases lzma from under LGPL. He > might change his mind in the future, though. > > So I guess we'll have to stick to using lzma from ports for now. Maybe releasing the extracting code under public domain? -- Florent Thoumie [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:42:24PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > That's well hidden (DOC/lzam.txt in the tarball). Someone > should produce some sort of lzma-lite distribution that only > does the basics. Then this could be a practical option. Unfortunately, a closer look dispelled the hope. The public-domained files only show how to use the GPL'ed ones. I had a conversation with the author, who is worried about incompatible formats being spawned if he releases lzma from under LGPL. He might change his mind in the future, though. So I guess we'll have to stick to using lzma from ports for now. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:05:42PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:54PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:35:30PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > 15 ??? 2008 10:21 ??, Brooks Davis ?? : > > > > Sadly, the author's licensing terms will limit the adoption of lzma. > > > > The BSD license is well established as the most restrictive acceptable > > > > license for successful, widely adopted compression schemes. > > > > I wouldn't necessicairly be opposed to seeing support for tar.lzma files > > in bsd.port.mk, but I don't think lzma has a signficant future if the > > licensing policy remains as is (i.e. complex and not clearly defined in > > the source files). > > == qouth lzma.txt == > SPECIAL EXCEPTION #3: Igor Pavlov, as the author of this code, > expressly permits > > you to use code of the following files: > BranchTypes.h, LzmaTypes.h, LzmaTest.c, LzmaStateTest.c, > LzmaAlone.cpp, > LzmaAlone.cs, LzmaAlone.java > as public domain code. > > > Without a more careful look, it sounds like enough to integrate > lzma in libarchive. That's well hidden (DOC/lzam.txt in the tarball). Someone should produce some sort of lzma-lite distribution that only does the basics. Then this could be a practical option. -- Brooks pgp7kKWQWNrpm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:54PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:35:30PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > 15 ??? 2008 10:21 ??, Brooks Davis ?? : > > > Sadly, the author's licensing terms will limit the adoption of lzma. > > > The BSD license is well established as the most restrictive acceptable > > > license for successful, widely adopted compression schemes. > > I wouldn't necessicairly be opposed to seeing support for tar.lzma files > in bsd.port.mk, but I don't think lzma has a signficant future if the > licensing policy remains as is (i.e. complex and not clearly defined in > the source files). == qouth lzma.txt == SPECIAL EXCEPTION #3: Igor Pavlov, as the author of this code, expressly permits you to use code of the following files: BranchTypes.h, LzmaTypes.h, LzmaTest.c, LzmaStateTest.c, LzmaAlone.cpp, LzmaAlone.cs, LzmaAlone.java as public domain code. Without a more careful look, it sounds like enough to integrate lzma in libarchive. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:35:30PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > 15 ??? 2008 10:21 ??, Brooks Davis ?? : > > Sadly, the author's licensing terms will limit the adoption of lzma. > > The BSD license is well established as the most restrictive acceptable > > license for successful, widely adopted compression schemes. > > Ever seen the inside of gzip.c (the original)? General Public License is > certainly more restrictive than BSD's and yet we (and just about everyone > else under the sun) had it in the tree until very recently, when a direct > client of libz was imported. The fact that a licensing compromsise was once made in the face of an extremely poor competitor (compress not only performs badly on text, it significantly expands files gzip and bzip are perfectly capable of compressing) is largely irrelevent. The reality is that the significant improvements provided by lzma will be relegated to a niche until an implementation under a BSD-like license is available. Even RMS acknoledges this effect http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 I wouldn't necessicairly be opposed to seeing support for tar.lzma files in bsd.port.mk, but I don't think lzma has a signficant future if the licensing policy remains as is (i.e. complex and not clearly defined in the source files). -- Brooks pgptTES63WXOg.pgp Description: PGP signature
