On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 21:04 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote: > Am Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:35:51 +0100 > schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > You should bug upstream against, perhaps using direct mail to > > maintainer. > > > > In general, you can post up feature requests but they might be closed > > with "upstream" as a reason as we can't do much about it. We will not > > have feature patches in 99% of the cases if it can be helped. > > > > You seem to be able to read my mind? Yes, I'd close it as won't > implement. Though it would be really useful it's simply against Arch > philosophy as it would add unneeded code to the upstream release. Depends on what you call unneeded. If I would add support for additional compression formats, I would just rewrite a big piece of the code to use either bsdtar instead of parsing output from tar and unzip. File-roller is very famous for its error messages about .tar.gz files that have been un-gzipped by your browser, but which are stored with the same extension. As tar will complain that it's not a gzip archive, file-roller can't open it... The same will be true for xarchiver.
