Create UltraStar_Deluxe

[s09bQ5]

No description provided.

[probonopd]

Hello @s09bQ5, do you know which tools were used to make this AppImage?

Squashfs image uses xz compression, this version supports only zlib, zstd.

This automated test supports only zlib, zstd compression. I am wondering which AppImage generation tool uses xz compression.

[s09bQ5]

This automated test supports only zlib, zstd compression. I am wondering which AppImage generation tool uses xz compression.

We are using appimagetool --comp xz .... to create the AppImages. The appimagetool is built from Git tag 13 of the AppImageKit repository.

[probonopd]

Can you please retry with --comp zstd or without --comp? Thanks.
While the spec doesn't mandate a certain compression (yet), this automated test currently supports only zlib and zstd compression.

[s09bQ5]

We made a new stable release 7 hours ago. I don't think we will replace those binaries before our next release in July.

Wouldn't it make more sense to replace the runtime binary used for the test with a new one that is capable of mounting xz compressed squashfses? Why do the test use https://github.com/AppImage/appimage.github.io/releases/download/deps/runtime-fuse2-x86_64 instead of https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/releases/download/13/runtime-x86_64? The latter can mount our AppImage without any problems. Does it really need to be statically linked?

[probonopd]

Yes, we are transitioning to the statically linked runtime soon.

• Statically linked runtime AppImageKit#877 (comment)

And possibly standardize on zstandard (no pun intended):

• Release versions/v1.0.md AppImageSpec#34

Out of curiosity, what was your rationale for choosing xz? In our tests, zstd outperformed everything else.

[s09bQ5]

Not even current HEAD of AppImageKit supports zstd.