This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Steering committee, please, consider using lzip instead of xz
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Antonio Diaz Diaz <antonio at gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Matias A. Fonzo" <selk at dragora dot org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:23:40 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Steering committee, please, consider using lzip instead of xz
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <59386137.40104@gnu.org> <cec11a09-64e1-ed54-f5f9-610bd3d1d024@redhat.com> <59391882.7050006@gnu.org> <20170608094248.GU2154@tucnak>
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> For integrity checking, gcc provides the md5.sum, sha512.sum files on
> gcc.gnu.org and gpg signatures on ftp.gnu.org. The choice of xz is that
> it is used very widely these days, which is not the case of lzip.
And given
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2017-01/msg00009.html
and especially the ensuing thread thereafter doesn't exactly increase my
confidence in lzip taking off.
Ciao,
Michael.