Web lists-archives.com

Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2




On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 08:10:00AM +0000, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 8, 2019 9:43:50 PM UTC, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >I just checked Stretch: not a single .bz2, either control nor data.  I'm
> >not going to download all of Jessie just to check -- but even assuming
> >something was left by Jessie's time, by Bullseye trying to install such a
> >.deb will mean mixing packages 3 releases apart.
> 
> dpkg-deb is used to examine debs too, and considering Jessie is still LTS
> and Wheezy is ELTS, you may well want to examine packages from several
> releases ago on a current system.  I have a weird case at work where I
> need to examine packages from as far back as Sarge and Etch through
> Buster, but I'd fully understand not supporting that.

Yeah -- and on any non-minimal system, unpacking such debs would work
without any action (be it via dlopen or exec|pipe).  libbz2 has enough
dependencies that it won't get out of default installs anytime soon.  On
minimal systems you'd get an error message telling you to install the
optional library.

> Some local packages can be long-lived, too.  E.g., at work I have one that
> installs an internal CA.  That package hasn't needed changing in a while,
> it drops a file and calls update-ca-certificates.  Wouldn't be a huge deal
> to rebuild it, of course.

You can "ar t foobar.deb" to see what kind of compression it uses.  I don't
think bzip2 was ever the default, though -- thus it's likely to happen only
in largest or overoptimized packages.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Did ya know that typing "test -j8" instead of "ctest -j8"
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ will make your testsuite pass much faster, and fix bugs?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀