On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 06:58:32AM -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > > Think it's a reasonable approach to just disallow > bzip2-compressed pkgs for the LSB for now? > Heh. Forbidding bzip2 is prolly not in LSB interest imho. Do you *really* want to reopen gzip vs. bzip2 discussions ad nauseum in a "standards" discussion? Why not just say that the payload can be compressed, implementation specific, and that gzip support is required, but bzip2 support is optional, and other types of compression can/will be added if/when necessary. That's what I would do anyways, your LSB mileage may vary ... In fact, that's the real reason why I added bzip2 to rpm. I got tired of discussing the relative merits of compression, and the implementation was like 50 lines or so, far easier than discussing. I've long since found my own answers to the relative merits of various compression formats. Ditto cpio vs. tar vs. ar vs ... LZO! Uncompresses like a bat out of hell! XAR! Uses XML for archive headers! ;-) 73 de Jeff -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@xxxxxxxxxx (jbj@xxxxxxx) Chapel Hill, NC _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
