[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:02:42 -0500 (CDT) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.01 (GSO 1266 2009-07-14) |
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
No objections.
I'm curious to know what the history of lzma and xz is that makes this
desirable though.
I am curious to know if XZ Utils has now achieved a proper stable
release or if it will be perpetually in a prototype like state. Its
code is quite large and quite obtuse.
Also, I remain curious to know why 'lzip' has never been considered as
a suitable replacement. Lzip accomplishes the same thing with 10
times less code, and better fits the traditions previously established
by gzip and bzip2. Its only limitation is that it requires a C++
compiler. The claim is made that it is not portable because it does
not come with a megabyte-sized configure script, but it does not need
such a huge configure script because it only uses portable ANSI
interfaces, similar to the way gzip only requires ANSI C. This sort
of decision-making results in people feeling that GNU software is
excessively complex bloatware. Personal politics and status has
become more important than proper technical analysis.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
- [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Eric Blake, 2010/09/13
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma,
Bob Friesenhahn <=
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Charles Wilson, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/14
- Re: [PATCH] maint: ship .xz, not .lzma, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/09/14