On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 13.06.2016 11:46, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 09:57 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> Since RHEL5 support has been dropped for a while now, maybe it's time to > >>> revisit changing the tar format > >> > >> Yep, IIUC we should be fine for require pax support for the vintage of > >> Linux we required. *BSD should be fine too, so IIUC, their tar version > >> uses libarchive which supports pax. Windows has 7-zip which can do pax > >> and of course cygwin. Finally OS-X has the pax command and support in > >> the apple archive utility. > >> > >> So I think we're be fine to require it. > >> > >> While, we're changing this, I think we should probably take the opportunity > >> to also switch over to using 'xz' as our compression format, instead of gz. > >> Consider the 1.3.5 release compressed with different formats: > >> > >> 35109092 libvirt-1.3.5.tar.gz > >> 25573966 libvirt-1.3.5.tar.bz2 > >> 12112612 libvirt-1.3.5.tar.xz > >> > >> Those results seem pretty compelling to me :-) > > > > xz compression sure takes a lot of time! > > Maybe it does, but it's done just once, while decompression is done > multiple times. So I think we can switch to xz. In fact, I'd be okay > with nothing but xz. > > But will this solve the issue? I mean, the problem that Cole is seeing > (and I'm too) with too long path names. Isn't tar the origin of it? > Because if it is, I fear that changing compression algorithm won't help > much. We already agreed that we should switch to the pax format, I'm just saying, we should *also* switch to xz compression. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list