tl;dr do you rely on the .bz2 release tarballs on downloads.haskell.org? If so, let us know! Hello everyone, As you may have noticed, a few releases ago we started producing xz-compressed binary distributions in addition to the usual bzip2 tarballs. While preparing 8.0.1-rc1 it was suggested that we move to distributing xz tarballs exclusively. Not only would this move reduce storage and bandwidth demands on our infrastructure but it would also simplify the job of producing the distributions. Indeed there is plenty of precendent for projects who have moved exclusively to xz (the Linux kernel and git being two examples). Of course, these reasons alone aren't sufficient to abandon those who might rely on our bzip2 tarballs. If you feel strongly that we should continue to distribute bzip2 tarballs, please let us know. Thanks! - Your friendly GHC packaging gnomes
On 14 January 2016 at 01:19, Ben Gamari
tl;dr do you rely on the .bz2 release tarballs on downloads.haskell.org?
I don't have a strong opinion about it and understand the desire to standardize on one archive type. I use the xz src tarballs myself, but how about continuing to do bz2 tarballs of the src tarballs only? (they are about the same size as the xz tarballs anyway) (A lot of small projects even still use tgz... :) Jens
Does this really strain storage infrastructure? There are only a few
blobs per release. If that's really a problem, sufficiently ancient
ones can presumably be pruned down to a single format without too many
complaints (e.g., if someone wants GHC 7.6, they may not be able to
have their choice of format). Bandwidth seems an entirely legitimate
concern, but thankfully a symmetric one—most users will want to
download the smallest available format, and those who are willing to
pay the extra time to download another likely have a good reason.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Ben Gamari
tl;dr do you rely on the .bz2 release tarballs on downloads.haskell.org? If so, let us know!
Hello everyone,
As you may have noticed, a few releases ago we started producing xz-compressed binary distributions in addition to the usual bzip2 tarballs.
While preparing 8.0.1-rc1 it was suggested that we move to distributing xz tarballs exclusively. Not only would this move reduce storage and bandwidth demands on our infrastructure but it would also simplify the job of producing the distributions. Indeed there is plenty of precendent for projects who have moved exclusively to xz (the Linux kernel and git being two examples).
Of course, these reasons alone aren't sufficient to abandon those who might rely on our bzip2 tarballs. If you feel strongly that we should continue to distribute bzip2 tarballs, please let us know.
Thanks!
- Your friendly GHC packaging gnomes
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
David Feuer
Does this really strain storage infrastructure? There are only a few blobs per release.
To me the real motivation here is to simplify the distribution preparation process. Currently I need to worry about producing, signing, hashing, and uploading two of each tarball. To do this requires a dozen or so lines of bash source that I'd prefer not to have to maintain. It's not the end of the world While our release process is improving, it's unfortunately still a bit finicky. Requirements like having to produce redundant tarballs don't help. I wouldn't say that our storage infrastructure is particularly strained. However, it is a finite resource and if we can use less of it per release at no cost then I think we should.
If that's really a problem, sufficiently ancient ones can presumably be pruned down to a single format without too many complaints (e.g., if someone wants GHC 7.6, they may not be able to have their choice of format).
I would not feel comfortable doing this for any release in 7.0 series. Once we put up a distribution, users should be able to expect that it will be there for the foreseeable future.
Bandwidth seems an entirely legitimate concern, but thankfully a symmetric one—most users will want to download the smallest available format, and those who are willing to pay the extra time to download another likely have a good reason.
This is essentially the point I'm trying to make: it appears that essentially everyone uses the xz distributions. If this really is the case, then I would ask why are we spending the disk space, effort, bandwidth, and complexity preparing the bzips. I can't think of a reason why users would prefer bz2 over xz but that of course does not mean that one does not exist. This was the reason for this thread. So far I get the impression that the bzip tarballs will not be missed. Cheers, - Ben
it appears that essentially everyone uses the xz distributions. If this really is the case, then I would ask why are we spending the disk space, effort, bandwidth, and complexity preparing the bzips. I stayed quite in this discusion so far, but I am one of the people still using bz2 rather than xz. Why? Because I use a fairly old Linux distro and my GUI tool for working with archives does not recognize xz format. I'll live without bz2, but my life will be less comfortable.
Janek --- Politechnika Łódzka Lodz University of Technology Treść tej wiadomości zawiera informacje przeznaczone tylko dla adresata. Jeżeli nie jesteście Państwo jej adresatem, bądź otrzymaliście ją przez pomyłkę prosimy o powiadomienie o tym nadawcy oraz trwałe jej usunięcie. This email contains information intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
participants (4)
-
Ben Gamari -
David Feuer -
Jan Stolarek -
Jens Petersen