On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:18:56PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 15:25 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 05:26:33PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > Follow the standard templating behavior instead of needlessly
> > > hardcoding information in the script.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > projects/osinfo-db.yaml | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/projects/osinfo-db.yaml b/projects/osinfo-db.yaml
> > > index 0d0a972..9e22c93 100644
> > > --- a/projects/osinfo-db.yaml
> > > +++ b/projects/osinfo-db.yaml
> > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> > > name: osinfo-db
> > > machines: '{all_machines}'
> > > title: osinfo database
> > > + archive_format: xz
> >
> > Would it make sense to unify the file formats we use, so it's either all xz or
> > all gzip, I'm sorry if I'm asking the obvious, but I'm not familiar with any
> > historical reasons for such decisions (if there were any).
>
> I believe most projects are still using with gzip for hysterical
> raisins; libvirt itself moved to xz only a couple of years ago.
>
> Standardizing on xz would make complete sense to me, but it might
> not be trivial for projects using non-autotools build systems,
> plus most will probably not reap the same benefits as libvirt and
> osinfo-db - both of which include a massive amount of eminently
> compressible XML files.
Python for example only supports tar.xz since Py 3.5.
Perl Module::Build only supports tar.gz
I don't think we really want to get into the game of ungzipping and
then xz'ing archives afterwards, just for sake of consistency.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
