Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The bzip2 tool is vastly less well deployed than gzip, so you'd be > making it much harder for folks not running Debian boxes to play. > You would also have to add bzip2 to the base/essential list in > Debian, and it's not clear to me that having two compression engines > in base is a good use of floppy space. Put me on record as not > being thrilled about this proposal.
Might I suggest that using it for source packaging would be appropriate, though? I have several reasons: 1) It is my understanding that bzip2 would do the most good there (it shaves what, 3MB off the linux kernel source?), it wouldn't be a big change, and I'm sure everyone who's ever downloaded the X source would thank us... 2) It is more obvious, in that you now have orig.bz2 and diff.bz2. 3) I don't think anyone's doing packaging on terribly low-memory machines. Does this strike people as more reasonable? Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]