Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 03 March 2012 14:52:37 James K. Lowden wrote:
> Why does such an arcane, uninteresting technology warrant advertizing
> via a new utility and suffix?  Why isn't xz a feature of zlib, so that
> unzipping applications could automatically use it?  If the xz folks
> are determined to supplant gzip, why not fork gzip and add xz to it,
> or link zlib to the xz utility, so that one command suffices for both?
> 
> As a project downstream from xz, if we must have yet another
> compression format independent of gzip, why not let it live along side
> the established one(s) until pretty much anything that links to zlib or
> similar also supports xz?

this makes no sense at all.  by your logic, zlib/gzip should support every 
single compression that someone might use.
-mike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.