Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:46:44 +0000 (UTC) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lzma (Re: HEADS UP: upgrading ImageMagick to 6.4.0-6) Message-ID: <fulfb4$1l9l$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> References: <200804151709.03452.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <20080421194224.GA21205@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20080422103434.GE54610@amilo.cenkes.org> <200804221021.45834.mteterin@mlp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin <mteterin@mlp.com> wrote: > The real problem with lzma right now is that lzmautils (already marked as > incompatible with lzma) installs its own lzma executable, with incompatible > command-line arguments :-( I would have preferred for what is now lzmautils to actually replace the lzma port, but Andrew wasn't happy with that. The LZMA Utils program follows the usual command line syntax for a Unix compressor, in agreement with compress/gzip/bzip2. I think this is the right way to go, and more importantly, I expect the Linux herd to move into that direction. GNU tar already includes support for lzma and it expects the one from LZMA Utils. > Maybe, instead of marking the ports as mutually incompatible, one of them > could be modified to install executables under different names?.. Sure. The question is, which program do people expect when they type "lzma" and which one should be renamed? -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fulfb4$1l9l$1>