This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Plan for release 2.29
- From: Antonio Diaz Diaz <antonio at gnu dot org>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Antonio Diaz Diaz <antonio at gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:45:42 +0200
- Subject: Re: Plan for release 2.29
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
Dear binutils maintainers,
(Please, CC me, as I am not subscribed).
Tristan Gingold wrote
On 20/06/2017 15:00, Matthias Klose wrote:
gdb already uses xz compression for it's release tarballs and
compressed diffs. GCC was also changed to xz compressed tarballs
instead of bz2, but keeping gz compressed tarballs. Could the same
be done for binutils?
Because when GCC reluctantly replaced bz2 with xz, Gerald Pfeifer
recommended me to keep pushing the strengths and advantages of
lzip to broaden its user base. But if binutils also starts
offering xz tarballs, it will contribute to increase the bandwagon
effect which, as far as I can tell, is the main reason adduced to
switch to xz.
Please, note that 'lzip -9' produces a tarball a 2% smaller than xz, in
spite of lzip using half the RAM to compress and requiring half the RAM
to decompress than xz:
-rw-r--r-- 1 19576763 Jul 24 12:41 binutils-2.29.tar.lz
-rw-r--r-- 1 20001232 Jul 24 12:41 binutils-2.29.tar.xz
Therefore, I politely request you to consider using lzip instead of xz
as the third format for binutils tarballs.
"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 is pretty ubiquitous at this point."
"As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the
bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence."
"From personal experience, the only reason Cygwin started considering
the inclusion of xz in the distro years ago was because the coreutils
tarball came in xz; and now Cygwin uses xz for all of its distribution
files (it used to use bz2)."
Thank you in advance,