I realized from "http://tukaani.org/xz/" the core of the xz utils compression code is based on LZMA SDK, but it has been modified quite a lot to be suitable for XZ Utils.
So I think we should ship lzma sdk for fedora in parallel with xz utils and p7zip. Since xz utils are the successor to lzma utils, maybe lzma utils can be safely retired in fedora.
In addition to reasons above, there are few stuff which requires lzma-libs actually.
In addition to reasons above, there are few stuff which requires lzma-libs actually.
repoquery --whatrequires liblzmadec.so.0
lzma-libs-0:4.32.7-2.fc11.i586
libarchive-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586
lzma-devel-0:4.32.7-2.fc11.i586
lzma-libs-0:4.32.7-2.fc11.i586
libarchive-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586
lzma-devel-0:4.32.7-2.fc11.i586
在2010-02-12 14:40:46，"Bruno Wolff III" <bruno@xxxxxxxx> 写道： >On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:39:02 +0800, > Chen Lei <supercyper@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi all, >> I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). >> Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a bundled library permitted under this condition,? > >We have an out of date version that isn't getting updated upstream and >we have a replacement library that uses a different API but which can >probably do what you want with some wrappers. > >I have an interest in this as well as the development version of squashfs >tools uses the latest SDK and won't directly work with either current >library. > >Bundling it wouldn't be permitted. > >Personally I'd like to see it replace the old lzma stuff, since xz provides >compatible utility programs and I don't think anything else is likely to >be using that library. Having three libraries doing almost the same thing >seems excessive.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
