Re: Linux 2.6.33-rc7

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

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