Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:00:57 +0000 (UTC) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6) Message-ID: <fulg5p$1lls$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> References: <200804151709.03452.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <20080422103434.GE54610@amilo.cenkes.org> <200804221021.45834.mteterin@mlp.com> <20080422150030.GI54610@amilo.cenkes.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@freebsd.org> wrote: > We had a talk with naddy about it, but since there are people > using archivers/lzma with whatever syntax it has, in scripted > environments, I'm inclined not to surprise them very much. I > think a wrapper can be added to lzmautils for full > backwards-compatibility, I may look at it later. > > Also, the lzmautils website claims it's of alpha-quality, so I'm > also hesitant to rely on it completely. Yes. The plan is to reorganize the code into a full liblzma and a lzma frontend program, just like libz/gzip and libbz2/bzip2. Importantly, they also intend to change the file format, probably by wrapping it into a container that has a fixed signature at the start and allows for integrity checking. So far this is still vaporware, but if it comes to pass, I expect we will shortly see .tar.lzma (.tlz) archives in the new format and the SDK lzma will probably not be able to handle them. > OTOH, changing lzmautils' lzma to another name would probably > confuse gtar (I'm not sure though). This could be easily patched. However, I expect other operating systems, particularly Linux, to standardize on LZMA Utils for _the_ lzma program, and I don't want FreeBSD to be the odd man out there. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fulg5p$1lls$1>