Dear GCC steering committee,
This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
missed it because of a subject line not explicit enough, I would like to
appeal to you directly.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg9.html
Since 2017-05-24 weekly snapshots use xz compre
On 07.06.2017 13:25, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Dear GCC steering committee,
>
> This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have missed it
> because of a subject line not explicit enough, I would like to appeal to you
> directly.
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg000
On 06/07/2017 02:25 PM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Dear GCC steering committee,
>
> This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
> missed it because of a subject line not explicit enough, I would like to
> appeal to you directly.
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:25:26 -0700
Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 07.06.2017 13:25, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> > Dear GCC steering committee,
> >
> > This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
> > missed it because of a subject line not explicit enough, I would
> > like to app
Matthias Klose wrote:
I'm not commenting on the "inadequateness" of xz, but maybe it would
better help lzip to address some project issues and promoting it as
an alternative rather than appealing to the GCC steering committee.
It is not my intention to "help lzip", but to use lzip as a mean to
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:18:49 -0600
Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/07/2017 02:25 PM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> > Dear GCC steering committee,
> >
> > This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
> > missed it because of a subject line not explicit enough, I would
> > like to appeal
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Matias Fonzo wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:18:49 -0600
> Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2017 02:25 PM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
>> > Dear GCC steering committee,
>> >
>> > This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
>> > missed it because of
Richard Biener wrote:
While openSUSE has it, SLES does not. tar support seems to be
via calling the external lzip tool (failing if that is not available).
You mean SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is using a format that does not
guarantee safe interoperability among implementations[1] to "power
Jeff Law wrote:
We've got far more important items to tackle than this. But if you
want me to bring it up formally with the SC I can.
ps. And just to be clear, I actually don't like xz and I'm always
annoyed when I run into something delivered in xz format. But xz
support at the distro level
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:27:30AM +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Gzip was once ubiquituous in distro packages and it was replaced. But this
> time distros won't lead the change because they can work around the main
> defects of xz. As you can read in section 2.2 of
> http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> While openSUSE has it, SLES does not. tar support seems to be
>> via calling the external lzip tool (failing if that is not available).
>
>
> You mean SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is using a format that does n
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> For integrity checking, gcc provides the md5.sum, sha512.sum files on
> gcc.gnu.org and gpg signatures on ftp.gnu.org. The choice of xz is that
> it is used very widely these days, which is not the case of lzip.
And given
http://lists.gnu.org/
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:42:48 +0200
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:27:30AM +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> > Gzip was once ubiquituous in distro packages and it was replaced.
> > But this time distros won't lead the change because they can work
> > around the main defects of xz
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html#fragmented
You keep referencing the marketing pages of one of the formats comparing to
other formats, that can be hardly considered unbiased. Most of the
compression formats have similar kind of pages, usually biased as well.
On 06/08/2017 03:27 AM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
>> We've got far more important items to tackle than this. But if you
>> want me to bring it up formally with the SC I can.
>>
>> ps. And just to be clear, I actually don't like xz and I'm always
>> annoyed when I run into somethi
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> You mean SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is using a format that does
> not guarantee safe interoperability among implementations[1] to
> "power mission-critical workloads"!?
I am not aware of a single customer complaint.
> For the case of SLES[2] I wou
My apologies if this issue is closed, I don't meant to drive the
discussion much farther if it is. (And my additional apologies if this
message is routed improperly, this GNU list seems to do something
different than others I am on - default respondee is not the list.)
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:29
Hi,
R0b0t1 wrote:
> If the steering committee would approve of the use of lzip I think it
> would be beneficial. So far it looks like there is only one major
> distribution which does not support it in its repository, and that
> would be an easy fix for that distribution.
I suspect there are
18 matches
Mail list logo
