On 03/20/19 19:59, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > (+Daniel and MST) > > On 03/20/19 16:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> A question: does this absolutely have to be 'xz' and not bzip ? > > I think bzip2 should work fine too: > > 1146804 edk2-aarch64-code.fd.xz | 1177603 edk2-aarch64-code.fd.bz2 > 1147852 edk2-arm-code.fd.xz | 1173662 edk2-arm-code.fd.bz2 > 10008 edk2-arm-vars.fd.xz | 263 edk2-arm-vars.fd.bz2 > 1674764 edk2-i386-code.fd.xz | 1688659 edk2-i386-code.fd.bz2 > 1870024 edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.xz | 1881979 edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2 > 320 edk2-i386-vars.fd.xz | 190 edk2-i386-vars.fd.bz2 > 1655276 edk2-x86_64-code.fd.xz | 1669280 edk2-x86_64-code.fd.bz2 > 1889024 edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.xz | 1901210 > edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.bz2 > 9394072 total | 9492846 total > > ~1% size increase in total. > > If we switch to bzip2, should I hurry for 4.0, or take my time in the next > development cycle? An alternative to rebasing / reworking the series in-place (for xz-->bz2) and to missing the 4.0 bus consequently, would be to merge the PULL req as is, and for me to submit an incremental update, for the xz-->bz2 replacement. I think that would qualify as a bugfix, and be eligible for the hard freeze too. Thanks Laszlo
