On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 10:16:46PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > > The alternative is that we could use a special token like ":zlib" or > > something to indicate that the internal implementation should be used > > (and then tweak the baked-in default, too). That might be less > > surprising for users, but most people would still get the benefit since > > they'd be using the default config. > > I agree that a special value (or NULL, if that's possible) would be > nicer here. That way, if someone does specify a custom gzip, we honor > it, and it serves to document the code better. For example, if someone > symlinked pigz to gzip and used "gzip -cn", then they might not get the > parallelization benefits they expected.
Thanks for spelling that out. I had a vague feeling somebody might be surprised, but I didn't know if people actually did stuff like symlinking pigz to gzip (though it makes perfect sense to do so). > I'm fine overall with the idea of bringing the compression into the > binary using zlib, provided that we preserve the "-n" behavior > (producing reproducible archives). I just assumed that gzwrite() would have the "-n" behavior, but it's definitely worth double-checking. -Peff
