iputils: bump to 20240905 #24944
iputils: bump to 20240905 #24944
Conversation
| PKG_SOURCE:=$(PKG_NAME)-$(PKG_VERSION).tar.xz | ||
| PKG_SOURCE_URL:=https://codeload.github.com/iputils/iputils/tar.xz/$(PKG_VERSION)? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reason why it was changed from tar.gz to tar.xz?
cc: @ynezz would be good to have some official statement from OpenWrt core members to know, which one is preferred and why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reason why it was changed from tar.gz to tar.xz?
A better question would by to ask why one would use gzip when xz is available. I'll point out that even our zlib sources are compressed with xz.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A better question would by to ask why one would use gzip when xz is available.
after the recent xz-utils drama, the xz format is being avoided, examples
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think there's any cause for that. The xz issues have been resolved, and there's no reason to think it is more of a risk than any other dependency at this point. zstd would be a good alternative, if iputils upstream was publishing releases in that format, but it's not. Switching back to gzip does not make sense at this point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Switching back to gzip does not make sense at this point.
You mean, like its impossible to remove those changes being introduced in this pull request?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's perfectly possible. It just doesn't make sense. xz is a better compression algorithm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
anyway... codeload does not generate .xz tarballs and CI is failing
|
Switch to local tarballs instead of code load. |
Maintainer: me
Compile tested: x86/master
Run tested: x86/master, basic manual runtime testing
Description:
New upstream release: https://github.com/iputils/iputils/releases/tag/20240905