Re: heads-up: 38 cleanup-maint patches
Jim Meyering <[email protected]> Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:36:39 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.utils.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CA+8g5KFoOY+aJN7j_VRzYec2aSazm69DphXqiCi9GeQ9k7gzOQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Jose E. Marchesi <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will soon push the following clean-up patches. > It was nearly 400KBuncompressed, so I'm attaching the compressed > version: > > Thanks Jim. Much appreciated :) > > AC_PREREQ(2.62) > -AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([1.11.1 parallel-tests]) > +AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([1.11.1 no-dist-gzip dist-xz color-tests parallel-tests]) > > I would like to continue distributing gzip tarballs along with xz > tarballs. Hi Jose, Thanks for the review. Re continuing to distribute gzip-compressed tarballs, I have to ask "Why?" My motivation to avoid gzip is partly because there have been so many CVEs, that I want to discourage gzip use where I can. I have spent too much time reading its hard-to-maintain code, and find xz to be far superior both on design/readability, and on the performance front. Perhaps I resent gzip for taking some time out of a christmas/new-years vacation to deal with the first CVE of 2010 :-) How many people do you know who run gpg --verify before uncompressing a distribution tarball? Those who skip that step may be vulnerable to some gzip 0-day. Sure, it's unlikely, but I have far less confidence in gzip's code than I do in xz's. Distributing xz-only tarballs has worked fine for 3 years in other GNU projects: coreutils, grep, diffutils and parted. If you feel strongly about it, you're welcome to include your justification in a patch and push it. Jim