FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-09-2010, 06:16 AM
Pierre Schmitz
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

Hi all,

some of us already commit xz compressed packages, others don't. We didn't
really decide on this yet.

So, is there a reason not to recommond every TU and Dev to change PKGEXT to
.pkg.tar.xz?

We might also want to write a little announcement to inform users about this
change. While most of them wont be affected, some would have to adjust their
custom scripts. And for those who use netinstall on a 2009.02 or older iso
would have to run pacman -Syu once to get a version of libarchive which is
able to deal with xz.

If wanted I also could add a check to devtools which issues a warning if xz is
not used.

Greetings,

Pierre

--

Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
 
Old 03-09-2010, 12:41 PM
Giovanni Scafora
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

Il 09/03/2010 08:16, Pierre Schmitz ha scritto:

So, is there a reason not to recommond every TU and Dev to change PKGEXT to
.pkg.tar.xz?


I just switched to .pkg.tar.xz
Can we switch to .pkg.tar.xz for community too?


--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it
 
Old 03-09-2010, 12:54 PM
Dale Blount
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:16 +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> some of us already commit xz compressed packages, others don't. We didn't
> really decide on this yet.
>
> So, is there a reason not to recommond every TU and Dev to change PKGEXT to
> .pkg.tar.xz?
>
> We might also want to write a little announcement to inform users about this
> change. While most of them wont be affected, some would have to adjust their
> custom scripts. And for those who use netinstall on a 2009.02 or older iso
> would have to run pacman -Syu once to get a version of libarchive which is
> able to deal with xz.


If we do this, we should leave pacman and libarchive in a historic
format for quite a while (or forever). Those packages are already small
enough it doesn't really matter.

Dale
 
Old 03-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

Am 09.03.2010 14:41, schrieb Giovanni Scafora:
> Il 09/03/2010 08:16, Pierre Schmitz ha scritto:
>> So, is there a reason not to recommond every TU and Dev to change
>> PKGEXT to
>> .pkg.tar.xz?
>
> I just switched to .pkg.tar.xz
> Can we switch to .pkg.tar.xz for community too?

Other TUs have already done so as far as I know. dbscripts on sigurd
have been updated to support .xz. You should be fine.
 
Old 03-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Dale Blount <dale@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:16 +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> some of us already commit xz compressed packages, others don't. We didn't
>> really decide on this yet.
>>
>> So, is there a reason not to recommond every TU and Dev to change PKGEXT to
>> .pkg.tar.xz?
>>
>> We might also want to write a little announcement to inform users about this
>> change. While most of them wont be affected, some would have to adjust their
>> custom scripts. And for those who use netinstall on a 2009.02 or older iso
>> would have to run pacman -Syu once to get a version of libarchive which is
>> able to deal with xz.
>
>
> If we do this, we should leave pacman and libarchive in a historic
> format for quite a while (or forever). *Those packages are already small
> enough it doesn't really matter.

I was going to respond to this thread and say we should keep a small
subset of packages in tar.gz format for things like this. Most of them
happen to be mine, but:
* pacman
* libarchive
* libfetch
* zlib ?
* glibc ?
* bash ?

-Dan
 
Old 03-09-2010, 01:23 PM
Dale Blount
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

> >> We might also want to write a little announcement to inform users about this
> >> change. While most of them wont be affected, some would have to adjust their
> >> custom scripts. And for those who use netinstall on a 2009.02 or older iso
> >> would have to run pacman -Syu once to get a version of libarchive which is
> >> able to deal with xz.
> >
> >
> > If we do this, we should leave pacman and libarchive in a historic
> > format for quite a while (or forever). Those packages are already small
> > enough it doesn't really matter.
>
> I was going to respond to this thread and say we should keep a small
> subset of packages in tar.gz format for things like this. Most of them
> happen to be mine, but:
> * pacman
> * libarchive
> * libfetch
> * zlib ?
> * glibc ?
> * bash ?

+1. At some point pacman is going to need a glibc update to work and
not being able to install glibc because it's a xz is an issue. We
should probably add a versioned glibc to pacman's depends so someone
doesn't end up upgrading pacman and not being able to run it because
glibc didn't get updated as well.

Dale
 
Old 03-09-2010, 01:38 PM
Daenyth Blank
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 09:23, Dale Blount <dale@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> I was going to respond to this thread and say we should keep a small
>> subset of packages in tar.gz format for things like this. Most of them
>> happen to be mine, but:
>> * pacman
>> * libarchive
>> * libfetch
>> * zlib ?
>> * glibc ?
>> * bash ?
>
> +1. *At some point pacman is going to need a glibc update to work and
> not being able to install glibc because it's a xz is an issue. *We
> should probably add a versioned glibc to pacman's depends so someone
> doesn't end up upgrading pacman and not being able to run it because
> glibc didn't get updated as well.
>
> Dale
>
>
+1 to everything here. Will it work if we set PKGEXT in the PKGBUILD
itself with a comment so that it overrides makepkg.conf?
 
Old 03-09-2010, 01:41 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

Am 09.03.2010 15:23, schrieb Dale Blount:
> +1. At some point pacman is going to need a glibc update to work and
> not being able to install glibc because it's a xz is an issue. We
> should probably add a versioned glibc to pacman's depends so someone
> doesn't end up upgrading pacman and not being able to run it because
> glibc didn't get updated as well.
>
> Dale
>

Newer glibc needs a newer kernel quite often, so you end up having half
of core as non-xz (a rule which has already been violated right now).

Even the 2009.08 image should have xz support already (with a bug that
fails to extract xz -9 packages but not xz -6 packages), so we should be
okay, mostly.
 
Old 03-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Daenyth Blank
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 09:41, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Newer glibc needs a newer kernel quite often, so you end up having half
> of core as non-xz (a rule which has already been violated right now).

Maybe we should set a timeline that says "after this date, we will not
provide .gz pacman+toolchain?" Set it far enough in the future that it
doesn't matter. I think the only people who might run into issues are
some VPS providers who may have an old install iso. We should also
contact them and tell them to update their junk
 
Old 03-09-2010, 04:38 PM
Pierre Schmitz
 
Default Moving to pkg.tar.xz officially?

Am Dienstag, 9. März 2010 15:18:47 schrieb Dan McGee:
> I was going to respond to this thread and say we should keep a small
> subset of packages in tar.gz format for things like this. Most of them
> happen to be mine, but:
> * pacman
> * libarchive
> * libfetch
> * zlib ?
> * glibc ?
> * bash ?

This might got lost in the other threads but I already took care of this. I
have set PKGEXT to .pkg.tar.gz within the PKGBUILD for pacman, libarchive, xz-
utils and libfetch. If you run pacman -Syu on an old system, pacman will
update those at first and quit. On the next run you already have a xz-
compatible pacman.

I have successfully tested this with the 2009.02 iso and I am sure it will
work with even older versions.

And to be honest: if you only update every one or two years you shouldn't use
Arch anyway. (or you know what you are doing and are able to take care of the
problems you get then.)

--

Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org