| Summary: | release sys-apps/portage source tarballs using the .tar.xz format | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Francesco Turco <fturco> |
| Component: | Unclassified | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
| Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | viklevin2 |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Yes, .tar.xz would be fine, since it's supported by EAPI 5 that we use in the ebuilds. |
Currently source tarballs for sys-apps/portage are released using the .tar.bz2 format, which is not as space efficient as .tar.xz. On my system: > $ du -k portage-2.3.45.tar.{bz2,xz} > 988 portage-2.3.45.tar.bz2 > 904 portage-2.3.45.tar.xz (portage-2.3.45.tar.xz has been compressed by me without any special tar setting besides --xz) So we can effortlessly save about 8.5% of disk space and bandwidth. What do you think? Reproducible: Always