On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Harald Becker <ra...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 01-03-2013 15:51 Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>Please understand my position. > >>Maintaining three copies of LZMA (de)compressors with >>virtually identical performance would be a mistake. > > You are still right, but there is one big difference: lzip has a > compressor in Busybox not only a decompressor. lzma and xz are only > decompressors and it is handy to have same available in cases where you > hit one of those files and you do not have access to the full package.
What percentage of bbox users would want to produce .lzip files? It isn't a widely used format. bbox didn't have even bzip2 compressor for a long time. > Beside this I prefer lzip due to its full implementation in Busybox ... > or are you going to add an xz compressor in Busybox? Yes, adding xz compressor is a good idea. > And in addition, if you do not like to have all those decompressors in > your Busybox binary, you can disable your dislikes in the config. This does not remove the need to maintain the code. More code = more bugs. Rarely used code = bugs stay unfixed for a longer time. > There are people who like to have a full compressor/decompressor > in Busybox, performing better than gzip/bzip2. xz compressor then. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
