From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8126 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2012 20:22:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 8117 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2012 20:22:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SARE_SUB_OBFU_Z,TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from Unknown (HELO mx.meyering.net) (88.168.87.75) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:21:55 +0000 Received: from rho.meyering.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister) with ESMTP id 9FD8A60035 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:21:47 +0100 (CET) From: Jim Meyering To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: xz-compressed release tarballs? Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87mx9a1ag4.fsf@rho.meyering.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 I have just downloaded 20MB of gdb-7.4.tar.bz2 and lamented that it wasn't xz-compressed. 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. For reference, gnome went xz-only in September: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.devel.announce/210 and I have done the same with coreutils-8.14 and 8.15 and grep-2.10. No one has complained, since xz is available nearly everywhere, these days, and on the few/aging systems for which it is not already packaged, it's easy to build the latest from source. Obviously, gdb needn't drop .gz and .bz2 tarballs now or ever, but please do consider distributing .xz-compressed tarballs.