On Jun 18, 2009, at 17:18 PM, David Lyon wrote:
But setup tools looks like it is trying to do the "right" thing and getting it wrong...
It isn't so easy for setuptools to know which things ought to have +x and which things ought not just based on their pathnames or other metadata. There was a bug in setuptools on cygwin years ago where something didn't have +x that needed it, and that was fixed in setuptools-0.6c6 by adding +x to a variety of files. That led to this new bug where something has +x that shouldn't:
I can imagine that in general there might be a package which has two files named "foo/bar" and "foo/quux" where the package really needs bar to have +x and quux not to have +x.
Having an archive format that preserves such bits would probably be a good way to solve all such problems -- by making it the packagers problems to set the bits before packaging rather than setuptools's problem to figure out which bits ought to be set after installation.
10% difference in library size is nothing.
1.8 / 2.5 == 72%, so 28% of the .zip file size is saved by switching to .tar.xz. Of course, some packages may gain more or less than 28% (compared to ZIP compression) from LZMA compression.