Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 16:10:37 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>, Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: bzip2(1) compression for manpages, Groff and Texinfo docs Message-ID: <p05210609bad87f340d0a@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20030502063200.GC12809@sunbay.com> References: <20030502011307.GA82420@sunbay.com> <20030502153334.A70914@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20030502063200.GC12809@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:32 AM +0300 5/2/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:33:34PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: > > > > I don't mean to sound rude, but what is the justification > > for this? > >Sorry to be sounding obvious, but what other use other than >better compression one should expect from a compression tool? It seems reasonable to make it so bzip'ed man pages can be used, but I see no burningly-urgent reason that the default compression must be changed before 5.1-release. Why should other developers have to stop what they're doing just to make sure this significant change is not going to be disruptive? Reducing the need on GPL'ed programs is definitely a good goal (IMO), but I think this is a little too disruptive a change to be making so close to a release date. There isn't any critical benefit to 5.1 per se, and the time that other developers spend on the fallout from this change is probably going to take away from issues which are much more important to the 5.1 release. If we were to vote on this, I'd say "do it right after 5.1 release, but not now". -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05210609bad87f340d0a>