Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency

[Warren Young]

> On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69;

What problem are y'all trying to solve here?  Is gnu.org running out of 
disk space or bandwidth?

I hope you're not just trying to save disk space.  I did a little math 
here and it looks like xz might save you 5 months of waiting for disk 
prices to drop.  Same $/GiB either way.

A better argument is the one behind RPM moving to xz: so they can keep 
adding bigger and more packages without moving to a second DVD.  But, I 
don't see that applying to gnu.org.

I still use systems[*] that don't have tar -J, and am likely to continue 
doing so for many years to come.  Installing xz isn't a big deal, but 
typing the longer commands needed for separate decompression and 
untarring is.

[*] The one likely to cause me the most problems is CentOS 5, replaced 
only about a year ago, which will still be receiving bug fixes for 
another 5 years.  Given that we still have CentOS 3 boxes in service 
despite the OS being EOL'd more than a year ago, I'd say I'm going to be 
without tar -J everywhere until the third tech bubble hits in ~2019, 
assuming Wall Street keeps the current schedule.

OS X Lion, released not that long ago, lacks gnutar -J, too.  Apple 
being Apple, Lions will probably be endangered way before 2019, but still...