[opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

Mike Miller-4
jwe, all,

Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future
official releases?

When you switched from .tar.xz to .tar.lz with the 4.2.0 release I was
at best indifferent about it at the time. I personally prefer .tar.xz by
default, and I know I can always run 'make dist-xz' and get what I want.
No choice has been taken away from me personally.

However, I learned (or re-learned) recently that Debian source packages
only support .tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .tar.lzma, and .tar.xz. With 4.2.x
released as they are, the Debian source package has to go back to using
the .tar.gz format. This costs about 50% more storage for each release
stored in the Debian archive, and 50% more bandwidth for each user who
pulls the Octave source from Debian.

Can we please add octave-x.y.z.tar.xz to the official release process to
allow Debian and Debian derivatives to save some bytes?

I am indifferent on whether we should release both .tar.lz and .tar.xz,
but IMHO including .tar.xz would be a nice improvement in the Debian
packaging domain.

Thanks,

--
mike

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 06/16/2017 01:27 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> jwe, all,
>
> Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future
> official releases?

I uploaded xz files for 4.2.0 and 4.2.1.  They should be copied to
ftp.gnu.org within an hour.  I'll upload gz, lz, and xz in the future.

jwe



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

Mike Miller-4
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 14:30:00 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> I uploaded xz files for 4.2.0 and 4.2.1.  They should be copied to
> ftp.gnu.org within an hour.  I'll upload gz, lz, and xz in the future.

Thank you. Do you think adding both 'dist-lzip' and 'dist-xz' to the
list of AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE options is overkill? This would ensure that all
three formats are created on every 'make dist', but as always, anyone
can use 'make dist-gz' or 'make dist-xz' if they only want one format.

--
mike

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 06/16/2017 02:46 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 14:30:00 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
>> I uploaded xz files for 4.2.0 and 4.2.1.  They should be copied to
>> ftp.gnu.org within an hour.  I'll upload gz, lz, and xz in the future.
>
> Thank you. Do you think adding both 'dist-lzip' and 'dist-xz' to the
> list of AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE options is overkill? This would ensure that all
> three formats are created on every 'make dist', but as always, anyone
> can use 'make dist-gz' or 'make dist-xz' if they only want one format.

It's fine with me if you want to add it.

jwe


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

Andreas Weber-6
In reply to this post by Mike Miller-4
Am 16.06.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Mike Miller:
> Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future
> official releases?

Just because you mentioned "xz":

"Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving"
http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

Not a problem for us but IMHO worth to know.

-- Andy

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

John W. Eaton
Administrator
I think that's the reason I chose lz. It's not a problem for me to upload gz, lz, and xz, so I'll just do that if it makes it easier for others.

jwe


On June 17, 2017 3:27:33 AM EDT, Andreas Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am 16.06.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Mike Miller:
Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future
official releases?

Just because you mentioned "xz":

"Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving"
http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

Not a problem for us but IMHO worth to know.

-- Andy

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [opinion] bring back Octave xz source release

Mike Miller-4
In reply to this post by Andreas Weber-6
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 09:27:33 +0200, Andreas Weber wrote:

> Am 16.06.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Mike Miller:
> > Can we bring back the octave-x.y.z.tar.xz source format for future
> > official releases?
>
> Just because you mentioned "xz":
>
> "Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving"
> http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html
>
> Not a problem for us but IMHO worth to know.

Yeah, I'm very aware of the lzip author's longstanding campaign against
xz. It's because of one of these campaign threads, now trying to
convince the gcc maintainers to make releases with lzip, that I
discovered that 4.2.[01] are in the Debian archive as .tar.gz because
.tar.lz is not supported. In fact, AFAICT, every GNU project that
distributes a source release in .tar.lz format also offers .tar.xz.

--
mike

Loading...