Description of problem: Please change Source0 to use tar.gz rather tar.lzma -- lzma is only introducing overhead and rpm.org has no lzma support in rpm, this is not rpm5.org ;-) Anyway, I can't see any half-good reason to use lzma in favour over gz as long as there is no support in RPM for it, so please switch back to gz again. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): coreutils-6.10-11 Expected results: Please apply the following patch or better: --- coreutils.spec 2008-03-06 13:21:32.000000000 +0100 +++ coreutils.spec.rsc 2008-03-09 22:44:47.000000000 +0100 @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Group: System Environment/Base Url: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -Source0: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.lzma +Source0: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source101: coreutils-DIR_COLORS Source102: coreutils-DIR_COLORS.xterm Source103: coreutils-DIR_COLORS.256color @@ -54,9 +54,7 @@ BuildRequires: libacl-devel BuildRequires: gettext bison BuildRequires: texinfo >= 4.3 -BuildRequires: lzma BuildRequires: autoconf >= 2.58 -#dist-lzma required BuildRequires: automake >= 1.10.1 %{?!nopam:BuildRequires: pam-devel} @@ -89,11 +87,7 @@ the old GNU fileutils, sh-utils, and textutils packages. %prep -#do not unpack in setup because of lzma is not yet supported in setup macro -%setup -q -c -T -cd .. -lzma -dc %SOURCE0 | tar xf - -cd %name-%version +%setup -q # From upstream %patch1 -p1 -b .verbose
LZMA is a mature compression tool that introduces both significant compression and decompression improvement in comparison with classical gz and bzip2 compressor. The argument that RPM doesn't have lzma support is bogus since one can decompress the installation tarball himself with minimal effort and no risk of regressions/brokeness. Also consider that LZMA is also an official upstream format for coreutils releases. This is NOTABUG IMO.
Sorry, but upstream migrated from bzip2 to lzma and I will use lzma ... tar.gz of coreutils-6.10 is 8.8M , lzma is 3.6M - and I don't see any reason why to use tar.gz instead of lzma. Following spec file construction is working correctly and without troubles and there is already requested (afaik) to support lzma in rpm setup macro. Then I will change spec file back - to the simple %setup -q . lzma archives are now used by more packages ( e.g. texlive ) so I really don't see any reason to go back to tar.gz tarballs. Lzma is not introducing overhead, lzma is reducing traffic - 5M smaller than tar.gz and 1M smaller than tar.bz2 in the case of coreutils. Therefore I see the usage of it reasonable (in addition with no support of tar.bz2 by upstream in latest version of tarball). So closing NOTABUG - feel free to add ANY GOOD REASON to go back to tar.gz . Size of lzma rpm is only 206666 - so even if you have to download it, it causes less traffic than usage of 5M bigger tar.gz tarball .
btw. lzma support is already committed in rpm-4.4.2.3 head, see bug #433188.