Re: Plan for release 2.29

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plan for release 2.29

Antonio Diaz Diaz
Dear binutils maintainers,

(Please, CC me, as I am not subscribed).

Tristan Gingold wrote
(http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2017-06/msg00216.html):
> On 20/06/2017 15:00, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> gdb already uses xz compression for it's release tarballs and
>> compressed diffs. GCC was also changed to xz compressed tarballs
>> instead of bz2, but keeping gz compressed tarballs.  Could the same
>> be done for binutils?
>
> Why not.

Because when GCC reluctantly[1] replaced bz2 with xz, Gerald Pfeifer
recommended me[2] to keep pushing the strengths and advantages of
lzip[3][4] to broaden its user base. But if binutils also starts
offering xz tarballs, it will contribute to increase the bandwagon
effect[5] which, as far as I can tell, is the main reason adduced to
switch to xz[6].

Please, note that 'lzip -9' produces a tarball a 2% smaller than xz, in
spite of lzip using half the RAM to compress and requiring half the RAM
to decompress than xz:

-rw-r--r-- 1 19576763 Jul 24 12:41 binutils-2.29.tar.lz
-rw-r--r-- 1 20001232 Jul 24 12:41 binutils-2.29.tar.xz

Therefore, I politely request you to consider using lzip instead of xz
as the third format for binutils tarballs.


[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00042.html
"And just to be clear, I actually don't like xz and I'm always annoyed
when I run into something delivered in xz format.  But xz support at the
distro level is pretty ubiquitous at this point."

[2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00069.html
[3] http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html
[4] http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/lzip_benchmark.html#xz1

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
"As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the
bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence."

[6] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2017-01/msg00011.html
"From personal experience, the only reason Cygwin started considering
the inclusion of xz in the distro years ago was because the coreutils
tarball came in xz; and now Cygwin uses xz for all of its distribution
files (it used to use bz2)."


Thank you in advance,
Antonio.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plan for release 2.29

Jeff Law
On 07/31/2017 08:45 AM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:

> Dear binutils maintainers,
>
> (Please, CC me, as I am not subscribed).
>
> Tristan Gingold wrote
> (http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2017-06/msg00216.html):
>> On 20/06/2017 15:00, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> gdb already uses xz compression for it's release tarballs and
>>> compressed diffs. GCC was also changed to xz compressed tarballs
>>> instead of bz2, but keeping gz compressed tarballs.  Could the same
>>> be done for binutils?
>>
>> Why not.
>
> Because when GCC reluctantly[1] replaced bz2 with xz, Gerald Pfeifer
> recommended me[2] to keep pushing the strengths and advantages of
> lzip[3][4] to broaden its user base. But if binutils also starts
> offering xz tarballs, it will contribute to increase the bandwagon
> effect[5] which, as far as I can tell, is the main reason adduced to
> switch to xz[6].
>
> Please, note that 'lzip -9' produces a tarball a 2% smaller than xz, in
> spite of lzip using half the RAM to compress and requiring half the RAM
> to decompress than xz:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 19576763 Jul 24 12:41 binutils-2.29.tar.lz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 20001232 Jul 24 12:41 binutils-2.29.tar.xz
>
> Therefore, I politely request you to consider using lzip instead of xz
> as the third format for binutils tarballs.
>
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00042.html
> "And just to be clear, I actually don't like xz and I'm always annoyed
> when I run into something delivered in xz format.  But xz support at the
> distro level is pretty ubiquitous at this point."
That's a quote from me.  Please do not use it as a means to promote lzip
as it was never meant to be used in that manner.

Jeff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Plan for release 2.29

Antonio Diaz Diaz
Jeff Law wrote:
>> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00042.html
>> "And just to be clear, I actually don't like xz and I'm always annoyed
>> when I run into something delivered in xz format.  But xz support at the
>> distro level is pretty ubiquitous at this point."
> That's a quote from me.  Please do not use it as a means to promote lzip
> as it was never meant to be used in that manner.

Please, forgive me if I gave the impression that I was promoting lzip.
My intention was to warn binutils maintainers that the xz format is
defective (or, if you prefer, poorly designed). I just offered lzip as
an alternative, but I find perfectly fine for binutils to continue
releasing gz and bz2 tarballs indefinitely and not use xz or lzip.


Best regards,
Antonio.