On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
maybe 2.0 to keep it
short and simple.
I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code
with pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it
compatible with gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In the
mean
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> maybe 2.0 to keep it
>> short and simple.
>
> I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code with
> pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it compatible with
Jim,
I’d certainly support that, but it would take some work to make pigz more
portable. It depends on the POSIX pthread functions, where I don’t know how
that will play out on, for example, Windows. I have an Android report where
apparently pthread is not quite the same. Also the pigz Makefile
On 04/05/2018 10:20 AM, Mark Adler wrote:
As a consequence, there would need to be a fair bit of testing to make sure it
works across a wide variety of systems. The current gzip has the advantage of
having been deployed over a very wide range of systems over a long time, so a
lot of portabilit
