Bug 235902 - devel/binutils should download lz distfile
Summary: devel/binutils should download lz distfile
Status: New
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: Baptiste Daroussin
Depends on:
Reported: 2019-02-20 23:13 UTC by Mikhail Teterin
Modified: 2020-12-12 15:24 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (bapt)

Switch to tar:lzma (1.03 KB, patch)
2019-02-20 23:13 UTC, Mikhail Teterin
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mikhail Teterin freebsd_committer 2019-02-20 23:13:22 UTC
Created attachment 202207 [details]
Switch to tar:lzma

The difference in size between binutils-2.32.tar.bz2 and binutils-2.32.tar.xz is about 30% and the .tar.lz is slightly smaller still.

It may or not be worth changing now -- when all the mirrors already have the .tar.bz2 variant -- but it should certainly be done with the next upgrade of the port.
Comment 1 Walter Schwarzenfeld freebsd_triage 2019-08-11 18:53:05 UTC
Maintainer feedback, please!
Comment 2 Daniel Engberg freebsd_committer 2020-03-16 12:07:58 UTC
Binutils uses tar.xz archive as of r518918 so I think we can close this now?
Comment 3 Mikhail Teterin freebsd_committer 2020-03-17 02:32:22 UTC
The currently-latest release 2.34 is available in .lz and .xz variants, the former still about 5% smaller than the latter.

I don't understand, why download anything other than the _smallest_ archive...
Comment 4 Daniel Engberg freebsd_committer 2020-03-22 23:54:29 UTC
Mainly because tar.xz is a very common format so availability is good and to avoid the controversy about lz(ip) format.
Comment 5 Mikhail Teterin freebsd_committer 2020-03-23 00:14:41 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #4)
> Mainly because tar.xz is a very common format so availability is good

Availability of binutils in tar.lz is just as good -- my question was not general, but about binutils only...

> and to avoid the controversy about lz(ip) format.

I must be out of the loop... What controversy?
Comment 6 Daniel Engberg freebsd_committer 2020-03-23 09:51:55 UTC
https://web.archive.org/web/20191017162427/https://blogs.gentoo.org/mgorny/2014/02/22/a-few-words-on-lzip-compressor/ Sums it up pretty much

While we have full(?) support I don't see any good in supporting the format the way it's being promoted and tar.xz us widely adopted and well tested by now seeing it being used pretty much everywhere.

FWIW, Debian rejected the patch to use it for packages compared to xz along with the reasoning why, link:
Comment 7 Mikhail Teterin freebsd_committer 2020-03-23 14:34:41 UTC
Wow, what a drama I missed...

> I don't see any good in supporting the format the way it's being promoted

I don't think, this consideration is valid -- and the argument admissible.

What's next? Checking the background of FreeBSD developers? Spiting unpleasant people by refusing to use software they've developed? Seriously?..

Given the necessary decompression support already being in FreeBSD, the _only_ valid argument remaining is the file size... However an archiver is being promoted, the only objective metrics is the size of the resulting archive.
Comment 8 Daniel Engberg freebsd_committer 2020-03-23 16:03:55 UTC
I'm not saying any of reasons above were taken into account however the fact that tar.xz is much more tested (used) than tar.lz is still a valid point. If you still think tar.lz should be used it's up to the maintainer, we're talking about a very minor change in size compared to previously used tar.bz2 archive which isn't generated for 2.34.
Comment 9 Baptiste Daroussin freebsd_committer 2020-03-24 16:18:53 UTC
I don't see any reason to ignore it, I will switch to it when updating to binutils 2.34 thank you for the notice, and sorry this bug has been open for more than a year, I somehow failed to notice it...