iputils: bump to 20240905 #24944
iputils: bump to 20240905 #24944
Conversation
net/iputils/Makefile
Outdated
| 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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any conclusion on this one? I haven't seen any statement from the OpenWrt core members, and only one opinion that the xz format should be avoided, if possible. I can see that others have different opinions, so this doesn't go anywhere. If the xz format needs to be avoided, it needs to be said loudly, otherąwise it won't happen.
This topic was raised because of #24908 , so what should we do now?
- Close the issue, do not care about anything, do what we can and keep using xz format or even switch to it, if possible. (Yeah, that's still happening like in this PR)
- OpenWrt core members will provide clear instructions on what to do more. My thoughts about not providing any details lead to some individuals like me who point out the XZ format, but they are being ignored, and it leads to 1st point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
anyway... codeload does not generate .xz tarballs and CI is failing
I'm going to switch to using the .tar.xz files directly from GitHub, as suggested by @neheb below (assuming I understood him correctly)
IMO the general question of whether xz is permissible at all is best answered by the fact that substantial core components of OpenWRT are still compressed with it and there's no indication of any movement by the project to change that. Q.E.D.
|
Switch to local tarballs instead of code load. |
To be clear, you're suggesting using the project's github release tarballs directly? E.g. https://github.com/iputils/iputils/releases/download/20240905/iputils-20240905.tar.xz |
Refresh patches Signed-off-by: Noah Meyerhans <[email protected]>
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