On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:48:03AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:47:11PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > > > > > I think the "right" way to move forward is to make a library that is at > > > least API-compatible with the current libbz2.so.1, make all the tools > > > use it, and just replace bzip2 with lbzip2. > > > > > Although I'm still on the fence about whether I'd vote for the Change as is, > > I tend to agree with this sentiment. > > > > Having two sets of code with different characteristics seems like > > isomething of a disservice to users (I started bzip'ing my logs and backups > > because the performance was suitable for my task when I tested with > > /usr/bin/bzip2 but then when I operated on those logs with a custom python > > script it was 3x slower!) > > > > From past precedent I agree that getting the new package to the point where > > we think it's a suitable replacement and then just making the switch for the > > next release makes the most sense. > I agree that this is desirable. OTOH, lbzip2.rpm is 90k, so I guess we can > suffer the extra disk usage :) > If it was about disk usage :-) But it's not. It's about having two codebases that do the same thing in different ways. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpnKkydP65lw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
