2010/5/29 Ritesh Raj Sarraf <[email protected]>: > On Saturday 29 May 2010 03:53:42 David Kalnischkies wrote: >> Could you confirm or deny this please Ritesh Raj Sarraf >> and take the bugreport back (or not)? >> It is already to late for me to play a good round of bug-reassign >> ping-pong (I hate this game anyway). ;) > > This was reported on a freshly installed squeeze box. If bz2 is what the > archive supports, that package should be a dependency to apt. The rest could > remain Suggests/Recommends.
Why? The archives supports also gzip and APT will fallback to it if bz2 and lzma is not available. I was told that at least a few people prefer gzip over bz2 as unpack of bz2 is slow compared to gzip which is notable on slow machines (and architectures), so why adding additional trouble for them by depending on bzip2 which is absolutely not strictly needed? And this wouldn't help anything anyway. If a (third party) archive does only serve gz compressed files APT would still say in --print-uris that it will download bzip2 as it doesn't know it beforehand. It can only know that after downloading the Release file… Best regards, David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
