From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 22 9:49:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from picnic.mat.net (picnic.mat.net [206.246.122.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067A914DB3; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:49:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by picnic.mat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23335; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:42:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:42:55 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey To: Will Andrews Cc: Shigeyuki Fukushima , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree (Was Re: ports/16252: bsd.port.mk: Add bzip2 support for distribution patches) In-Reply-To: <20000122123109.E59732@shadow.blackdawn.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Will Andrews wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:44:46AM +0900, owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > > Truely, I wish to import bzip2 to -current src tree. :) > > Is there a problem about some restriction for distributing bzip2? > > # I'm sorry I don't know about that. > > <2 5003-0> (00-01-22 12:27:37) [will@shadow /usr/ports/archivers/bzip2]% > cat pkg/DESCR > This is bzip2, a advanced block-sorting file compressor. It is > believed to be free from any patents. > > WWW: http://sourceware.cygnus.com/bzip2/ > > Nope - looks like it could be a candidate for importing to the source > tree. However, I'm not sure everyone on current@ is going to agree, > since we already have something for compression (gzip) that is pretty > standard around the world. You guys better understand, having software be legally *able* to be in the source tree is a *very* far way from needing it in the source tree. A very strong case would have to be built that we cannot really do without it. Seeing as gzip fills the requirement with undeniably maximum compatibility, the mere fact that bzip2 compresses smaller doesn't sound like a good reason in of and itself. We would not be able to get rid of gzip anyhow (for compatibility reasons) so we'd end up having to have two tools where one does the job well enough now. A case would have to be built that bzip2 does something critical that cannot be done without bzip2. Else, it stays as a fine port. Heck, emacs is a fine port too, but it'll never get into the base system. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, chuckr@picnic.mat.net | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message