On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> i) Does this sound reasonable to everyone? In particular, is there any
> loss in losing the "original" compressed files?
No, there is at least one reason for the "original" .gz files. Here are
the logical steps:
a) any Linux distribution contains their own "linux" package with the
source base being "vanilla" Linux .tar.gz file
b) switching such to .tar.bz2 will make building the package longer
because of longer extract times
c) re-running tar to generate a .tar.gz from .tar.bz2 and store the
.tar.gz instead will make customers suspicious --- i.e. they will have to
ask "is this _really_ a plain Linux tree or do I need to run diff(1) to
verify, just in case?"
See the reasoning? However, I agree that this reason is very weak. But you
were interested in any reasons, including weak ones, I assume :)
Regards
Tigran
>
> ii) Assuming a yes on the previous question, what time frame would it
> make sense for this changeover to happen over?
>
> -hpa
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:28 EST