Hi, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As an user of Octave who wish to see more lzip adoption, I don't think >> this to be fair. > Octave's use of lzip is completely unrelated to Debian asking for xz. > Providing xz in no way prevents Octave from also providing lzip. I think > you are inventing a conflict here where none exists. I'd like to apologize for not being clear enough about what I was refering to when speaking about a conflict of interest. Probably, I haven't explained it well. I wasn't saying that there was a conflict with Octave. In any case, what I think the conflict is goes as follows: 1- Somebody from Debian says: "if a lot of upstream tarballs start to be natively avaiable in .gz and .lzip format (no .xz), *then* it becomes interesting to at least support lzip for source packages" 2- An upstream decides to switch its tarballs from xz to lzip 3- Somebody else, also from Debian, asks the upstream above to bring back the xz tarball 4- As a result, lzip is almost never used alone (without xz), and Debian can justify forever the lack of lzip support Thank you for your advise, but I'd like to make a brief comment. > It's just a compression format....The world might be mildly better if more > people used a better compression format, but no one is going to die. How could you know? I would not make such an absolute affirmation. IMO software must be taken seriously. It may end in places you couldn't imagine: in a hospital's operating theatres, in an air-traffic control center, or in the London stock exchange. Moreover, software errors have already killed people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Seville_Airbus_A400M_Atlas_crash "Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud confirmed on 29 May that incorrectly installed engine control software caused the fatal crash." Maria Bisen
