Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> >>Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
> >
> >I would vote with Eric and use -k to be consistent with xy and bzip2.
> >They are the closer related family of tools.
>
> I guess I voted for -k when I implem
Bob Proulx wrote:
Rodrigo Campos wrote:
Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
I would vote with Eric and use -k to be consistent with xy and bzip2.
They are the closer related family of tools.
I guess I voted for -k when I implemented it in lzip. :-)
Using -K for --keep
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 05:51:49PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> > Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
> >
> > Eric suggested "-k", similar to what bzip2 and friends use. I have
> > used "-K" to avoid overlapping with pkzip (currently not being
> > used)
Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
>
> Eric suggested "-k", similar to what bzip2 and friends use. I have
> used "-K" to avoid overlapping with pkzip (currently not being
> used). But I have no problem using "-k" or "-K".
I would vote with Eric and
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 02:07:54PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 02/12/13 12:22, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> > What do you think ?
>
> I think it's fine to put a change like that in.
Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
Eric suggested "-k", similar to what bzip2 and friends us
On 02/12/13 12:22, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> What do you think ?
I think it's fine to put a change like that in.
The documentation needs to be improved, and if
you're doing the change it's probably complex enough
that we'll need to have papers signed -- is that something
you can do?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:49:15AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/10/2013 05:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 02/10/2013 07:41 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> >> Is this use case valid enough to accept
> >> the patch ?
> >
> > I'm sort of on the fence on this one.
> > Comments from others welcome.
>
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:49:15AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/10/2013 05:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 02/10/2013 07:41 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> >> Is this use case valid enough to accept
> >> the patch ?
> >
> > I'm sort of on the fence on this one.
> > Comments from others welcome.
>
On 02/10/2013 05:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 02/10/2013 07:41 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
>> Is this use case valid enough to accept
>> the patch ?
>
> I'm sort of on the fence on this one.
> Comments from others welcome.
You can emulate --keep with 'gzip -c ... > file.gz'; but a quick look at
o
On 02/10/2013 07:41 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> Is this use case valid enough to accept
> the patch ?
I'm sort of on the fence on this one.
Comments from others welcome.
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 12:47:28PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 07:21 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> > This path just adds the "--keep" option to keep original files unchanged.
>
> Could you please explain why that option would be helpful?
Right now for me is useful because I'm using gz
Paul Eggert wrote:
This path just adds the "--keep" option to keep original files unchanged.
Could you please explain why that option would be helpful?
It's not clear, from the patch.
It allows, for example, format conversion preserving file date without
using an additional "touch":
$ lzip
On 02/09/2013 07:21 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> This path just adds the "--keep" option to keep original files unchanged.
Could you please explain why that option would be helpful?
It's not clear, from the patch.
13 matches
Mail list logo
