The latest version of pam_mount (1.4) is only being released in .tar.lz (lzip) format, which is not currently supported by portage. Can it be added?
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create an ebuild where the source has a .lz extension
2. Attempt to build the package
It fails with an unknown extension error
It extracts the source using lzip and continues the build as normal
It seems similar to lzma-utils, but incompatible.
Created attachment 174704 [details]
quick ebuild. lzip generates archives that are incompatible with lzma because it integrates checksumming (at least that's what I was told).
ive added the lzip package, but i dont think there's much point in adding it to the EAPI considering it'll be chucked as soon as xz comes out (which will in turn chuck lzma)
Created attachment 186141 [details, diff]
Integrates app-arch/lzip into portage
lzip is a different app than lzma. I'd like to submit an ebuild for GNU Moe, for example, but the only tarball format is now .tar.lz, which lzma will NOT decompress. This results in a very ugly src_unpack() in the ebuild; making portage more flexible seems much more elegant.
I've attached a minimal patch for sys-apps/portage enabling lzip when a tarball ends in .lz.
Or perhaps I misunderstood. When xz comes out, will it handle .lz files?
xz is not at all related to lzip and most probably will never handle .lz files. In fact lzip seems to be the right LZMA tool to support in ebuilds. See http://lpar.ath0.com/2009/09/25/documentation-as-an-indicator-of-code-quality/
FYI, lzip has been marked stable for x86 and amd64.
(In reply to comment #0)
> The latest version of pam_mount (1.4) is only being released in .tar.lz
> (lzip) format, which is not currently supported by portage. Can it be added?
Meanwhile pam_mount has switched to .tar.xz format.
There's only one ebuild in the tree (app-text/ocrad-0.18) that uses an .lz distfile. Should we really add support for a format that apparently is dying?
(In reply to comment #8)
> There's only one ebuild in the tree (app-text/ocrad-0.18) that uses an .lz
> distfile. Should we really add support for a format that apparently is dying?
(In reply to <a href="http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249059#c8">comment #8</a>)
> Should we really add support for a format that apparently is dying?
Sorry but this is the most superficial analysis I have ever read. Lzip is a relatively recent format that is not yet widely used because it is not yet widely supported and vice versa.
Lzip is a high quality family of programs built around a common format that offers, among other things, recovery features beyond those of any other compressor.
So the question is, are you going to decide about supporting a format based on the format's virtues and defects, or are you going to decide based on popularity and contribute to make free software <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman">more fashion-driven than women's fashion</a>.
We make the decision about what to support in EAPIs based upon whether or not enough ebuilds will use the feature to make it worth the maintenance cost.
If we add EAPI support for lzip, we have to be sure that five years from now, we'll not have to worry about finding an lzip program that is still actively maintained.
In the mean time, ebuilds can use manual uncompression for lzip. Once a lot of ebuilds start doing that, *then* we can move it into an EAPI.
Thanks for the aclaration.
I guarantee you that in five years from now lzip will be still actively maintained.
In fact, given the history of the various LZMA compressors for GNU/Linux, it may well happen that lzip is the only LZMA compressor that is still actively maintained in five years from now.
Then one year from now, when lzip is being used by a good number of packages, it will be time to evaluate whether it's time to move support out of ebuilds and into EAPI.
(In reply to comment #10)
> Sorry but this is the most superficial analysis I have ever read. Lzip is a
> relatively recent format that is not yet widely used because it is not yet
> widely supported and vice versa.
> Lzip is a high quality family of programs built around a common format that
> offers, among other things, recovery features beyond those of any other
Please don't misunderstand my statement. This is in no way meant as a judgement about quality of lzip vs. xz-utils.
However, this bug was opened almost two years ago, even before the first version of xz-utils was released. Meanwhile, xz has gained enough popularity that more than 300 ebuilds in the portage tree are using it. Whereas lzip is used by one single ebuild only, and even the package that was the original case for this bug has switched from lzip to xz.
So as Ciaran said, at the moment the additional maintenance burden would not be justified. (And I don't see a trend that this would change anytime soon.)
(In reply to comment #13)
> Then one year from now, when lzip is being used by a good number of packages,
> it will be time to evaluate whether it's time to move support out of ebuilds
> and into EAPI.
One more year has passed, and lzip is still being used by a single package only (app-text/ocrad, which happens to be maintained by lzip's author).
Closing as WONTFIX. Feel free to reopen when this situation has changed.