From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-40398-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20641 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2012 21:31:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 20633 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2012 21:31:40 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SARE_SUB_OBFU_Z,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:31:26 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LYF00J00D1LX900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:31:25 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.102.195]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LYF00JVFD4CL0A0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:31:25 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:31:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: xz-compressed release tarballs?
In-reply-to: <20120126203148.GA30390@host2.jankratochvil.net>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: jim@meyering.net, gdb@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83vcnyyww0.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87mx9a1ag4.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <20120126203148.GA30390@host2.jankratochvil.net>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:31:48 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:21:47 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > With xz -9e, that would have been 25% smaller,
> > at 15282412 bytes (contrast w/20614020 for .bz2).
> > The .xz tarball would have uncompressed more quickly, too.
> 
> +1
> 
> That slow bzip2 decompression is a continuous pain during packaging, staring
> at bzip2 -dc on each gdb.spec debugging cycle.

As long as we don't drop bz2 and gz, that pain will never go away.

> Previous proposal by me:
> 	xz for the new release tip
> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-09/msg00341.html

Please think a little about those who don't necessarily have a tar
that knows about xz.  The world doesn't end with GNU/Linux.