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 bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
