I'm not sure if I really want to get into the bz2-vs-gz argument again
but there is a question here that's easy to answer:
Romain Francoise writes ("On bz2 compression in debs"):
> 2) Doesn't the disappearance of 'data.tar.gz' warrant a bump of the
>
Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) If deb(5) is authoritative, am I right in thinking that bz2
> compression is a policy violation at the moment?
Yes and no. deb(5) is authorative but out of sync with the
implementation imho.
> 2) Doesn't the disappe
Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/10/msg02053.html
> The above link says it should be 3.0 for bz2 compressed binary debs:
I know, that's why I mentioned it. But it's from 1999.
--
,''`.
: :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Romain Francoise wrote:
> 2) Doesn't the disappearance of 'data.tar.gz' warrant a bump of the
> binary version number, from 2.0 to, say, 3.0?
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/10/msg02053.html
The above link says it should be 3.0 for bz2 compressed binary debs:
> Dpkg-deb will
Hi,
In the past few days I've been making random tests on the whole
archive, and found two binary packages that my tools couldn't handle
because they use bz2 compression of the data tarball.
That is to say, they don't have the data.tar.gz member but have a
data.tar.bz2 member instead. This forma
5 matches
Mail list logo
