[Development] Qt 5 beta

BRM bm_witness at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 30 23:12:25 CEST 2012


> From: Jonas M. Gastal <jgastal at profusion.mobi>

>To: development at qt-project.org; BRM <bm_witness at yahoo.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5 beta
> 
>On Thursday 30 August 2012 11:48:38 BRM wrote:
>> tar.bz2 is pretty common, along with tar.gz.
>> tar.xy, OTOH, is quite rare.
>> 
>> Googling tar.bz2 yields good results what to do with such a file.
>> Googling tar.xy yields nothing useful about what compression engine is used
>> even used; Googling "compressed file extensions" yielded Wikipedia's list
>> of archive formats which finally produced some useful info - that it's an
>> LZMA2 compression.
>> 
>> While I understand that tar.xy may be smaller it's use general use seems to
>> be limited so unless there is a supported platform/target that only uses
>> tar.xy, I'd suggest dropping it and keeping tar.bz2 instead. Given a choice
>> between a bzip and gzip, I'd personally choose bzips.
>> 
>> If space is a concern, then zip and tar.gz are probably sufficient for
>> distribution.
>> 
>> $0.02
>> 
>> Ben
>
>I'm not sure wether it's just a typo, but you consistently write .xy so I'm 
>going to assume not. Also, first and third tar.xz results in google for me are: 
>http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1116012
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xz
>
>Not being a packager I don't know, but I have a hard time imagining it's 
>harder to change your packaging scripts from Qt4 to Qt5 than from tar.bz2 to 
>tar.xz.
>

A typo and misreading on my part.
And yes, correcting that does yield more pertinent information.
I'd still argue it is good to keep tar.bz2.

Ben




More information about the Development mailing list