On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:57:40AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > Daniel Veillard wrote: > > Hum, I realize that support of LZOP was added after 0.7.0, so we never > > made a release with it (well except for git snapshot which may have been > > pushed). > > I wonder if the best is not to just drop the lzop option altogether > > and stick xz as a package dependancy until we have found a way to > > provide at the API level which compression options are actually > > available. > > > > Opinions ? > > Dropping lzop sounds good. It seems lzop is not very popular. > We don't need that many choices. > > Maybe even nuke lzma too before we're stuck with it forever. > Technically, we can do that, since it was added only a month ago, > also after 0.7.0: > > v0.7.0-35-g2d6a581 Actually om my machine here lzma is provided as a backward compat option by xz, so yes I'm inclined to remove that option too: aphio:~ -> which lzma /usr/bin/lzma paphio:~ -> rpm -qf /usr/bin/lzma xz-lzma-compat-4.999.8-0.8.beta.20090817git.fc11.x86_64 I will post a patch later, Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list