[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma
From: |
Gary V. Vaughan |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:04:24 +0700 |
On 14 Sep 2010, at 11:58, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> * Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:34:23PM CEST:
>> * configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Prefer better file format.
>
>> Any objections to this patch? xz is a more robust successor to lzma.
>
> I'm fine with, if you also adjust HACKING, .gitignore, Makefile.maint.
> We require new-enough Automake for the toplevel anyway now. Please give
> Gary a couple of days to object, in case his release setup has other
> requirements.
No objections.
I'm curious to know what the history of lzma and xz is that makes this
desirable though.
Cheers,
--
Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Eric Blake, 2010/09/13
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma,
Gary V. Vaughan <=
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Charles Wilson, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/09/14