On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Ian Bruce wrote: > option was implemented. Perhaps it's thought that more testing is > required before it can be used for the archives; is there any other > reason not to use it?
The way gzip --rsyncable works is perfectly safe, it cannot cause data loss AFAIK. It just makes gzip begin compression blocks in predictable places of the plaintext data, that tend to stay constant. OTOH, it does decrease compression ratio (probably *very* little). But if compression ratio was important, we would have switched to bzip2 for everything anyway. AFAIK, there is no technical reason for not using gzip --rsyncable, other than the simple fact that nobody modified the dak code yet. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
