Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:06:37 -0800 | From | "Justin P. Mattock" <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.33-rc7 |
| |
On 02/06/10 14:49, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> But we've certainly fixed a few things, and it's been a week, so here's >> -rc7. I wish I could say that it's the last -rc, but I strongly doubt >> that, and we'll almost certainly have at least one more. > > Oh, and I forgot to ask one thing I had intended to ask in the release > notes.. > > Do people really care about the old-fashioned tar.gz and patch.gz files? > I've always uploaded the tar-files and patches compressed with gzip, > because that's the "traditional" way, and then we have a script that also > re-compresses things as 'bz2' because it compresses better and many people > are bandwidth-limited and much prefer the better compression. > > Of course, if you really care about bandwidth, you're better off just > fetching the git trees instead, but the question for non-git users is: > > Would it be ok to _only_ have the 'bz2' patches and tar-balls? > > Having two copies of every large file seems silly, if nobody really > requires the traditional .gz format.. > > Linus > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
having .bz2 is always what I use, but one thing I've noticed if you have a system without bzip2(or whatever the package tar depends on), tar wont work with those. I'd say keep with .tar.gz this way any system will always uncompressed.
Justin P. Mattock
| |